Recently, the Supreme Court heard the case relating to the 2014 rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl in Uttarakhand, an incident that came to be known as the “Little Nirbhaya” case and had triggered widespread outrage across the state. The matter had earlier led to a death sentence for the main accused and a seven-year jail term for another, with both convictions upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court.
The prosecution’s case, however, was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. A Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta highlighted serious lapses in the investigation and found that the evidence failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. Justice Mehta, writing for the court, observed that capital punishment demands the “highest standards of proof and fairness,” and cautioned that even the slightest doubt must weigh against its imposition.
The Court ultimately set aside the previous verdicts and acquitted both accused, reiterating that the death penalty should be confined to the “rarest of rare” cases and warning that any mechanical application risks an irreversible miscarriage of justice.
Picture Source :
