Introduction:

The Supreme Court, in the case State of Uttarakhand v. Nanku @ Pappu & Anr., Criminal Appeal Nos. 1189-1190/2015, recently dismissed an appeal filed by the State of Uttarakhand against the acquittal of the Respondent in a murder case. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, not only upheld the acquittal but also highlighted a disturbing incident of custodial torture involving the accused. The case arose from a conviction by the trial court based on the last-seen theory, which was later overturned by the Uttarakhand High Court on finding that the prosecution failed to substantiate its claims. The High Court noted that a key prosecution witness had discredited the prosecution’s case, rendering the evidence insufficient to establish the accused’s guilt. While affirming the acquittal, the Supreme Court emphasized the need for accountability regarding custodial violence and directed the jurisdictional District Magistrate to conduct an inquiry and initiate proceedings against the erring officials.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The State of Uttarakhand, represented by Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat and other counsels, contended that the trial court’s conviction based on the last-seen theory was justified and that the High Court erred in overturning the decision. The State argued that the evidence presented during the trial established the accused’s presence with the deceased shortly before the alleged incident, warranting their conviction. Further, the State expressed concern that acquittal would set a precedent undermining the prosecutorial process. On the other hand, the Respondents, represented by senior advocate Ms. V. Mohana and her team, highlighted the lack of credible evidence linking the accused to the crime. They argued that the last-seen theory was unsubstantiated, as the sole prosecution witness failed to identify the accused in court and could not confirm whether they had accompanied the deceased. The defense also pointed out the glaring discrepancies in the prosecution’s narrative and drew attention to the accused’s custodial torture, emphasizing that the injuries sustained by the accused were not accidental but inflicted deliberately.

Court’s Judgment:

After examining the evidence and arguments, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s acquittal was based on plausible reasoning. The bench observed that the prosecution’s reliance on the last-seen theory failed, as the key witness could not identify the accused or substantiate their alleged connection to the crime. The Court also expressed its dismay at the State’s decision to appeal against an acquittal in a case where the prosecution’s evidence had been discredited during the examination-in-chief itself. The Court noted the High Court’s findings regarding custodial violence, including the accused’s broken leg, which was confirmed by medical testimony as being caused by assault with heavy objects. Recognizing the gravity of custodial torture, the Supreme Court directed the jurisdictional District Magistrate to conduct an inquiry into the incident and initiate appropriate proceedings against the officials responsible. Although the appeals were dismissed, the case was kept pending to allow the Court to review the inquiry report, with the matter listed for directions on April 4, 2025. The Court emphasized the importance of holding authorities accountable for custodial violence, ensuring that such incidents do not undermine public trust in the criminal justice system.