Legal Review and Analysis of Nazim & Ors vs State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 1184

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Title: Nazim & Ors. vs State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2025 INSC 1184
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Date of Judgment: October 06, 2025

2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions

The judgment primarily discusses and interprets the following legal provisions and principles:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
  Section 302: Punishment for Murder
  Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen the offender.
  Section 120-B: Punishment of criminal conspiracy.
  Section 377: Unnatural offences.

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
  Section 11: Facts relevant when they are inconsistent with other facts or make their existence or non-existence highly probable.

• Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 & Rules, 2007:
  Rule 12: The procedure for determining the age of a juvenile.

• Doctrine of Circumstantial Evidence: The judgment extensively relies on the "five golden principles" or the "panchsheel" of circumstantial evidence established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116.

3. Basic Judgment Details

This criminal appeal was filed by the convicts, Nazim, Aftab, and Arman Ali, challenging the judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which had upheld their conviction and life imprisonment sentenced by the Trial Court.

• Origin of Case: The tragic murder of a 10-year-old boy, Muntiyaz Ali, on or around June 5, 2007.

• Trial Court Outcome: The Trial Court convicted the three Appellants under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Five other co-accused were acquitted.

• High Court Outcome: The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Appellants and affirmed the Trial Court's decision.

• Supreme Court Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted all three Appellants.

4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment

The core issue before the Supreme Court was whether the prosecution had successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellants were guilty of the murder.

The entire judgment is a meticulous application of the legal principles governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution's case was riddled with gaps and improbabilities, failing to meet the required standard of proof.

A. The Foundational Flaw: Omission in the FIR

The Supreme Court placed significant emphasis on the fact that two of the three Appellants, Nazim and Aftab, were not named in the First Information Report (FIR). The FIR, lodged by the victim's father (PW-1), specifically named six other individuals due to prior enmity. The Court held that this omission was a "glaring circumstance" that cast a serious shadow on the subsequent attempt to implicate them. Citing Ram Kumar Pandey vs State of M.P. (1975) 3 SCC 815, the Court reasoned that such an omission in the earliest version of events is relevant in judging the veracity of the prosecution's case and raises a legitimate inference of possible false implication at a later stage.

B. The Unreliable Conspiracy Evidence (PW-2)

The testimony of PW-2 (Tauhid Ali), who claimed to have overheard a conspiracy to murder on the night before the incident, was deemed wholly unreliable by the Supreme Court. The Court highlighted several improbabilities:

• Belated Disclosure: PW-2 did not mention this alleged conspiracy in the FIR, which he himself scribed, nor did he inform anyone about it until the trial.

• Implausible Setting: The Court found it inherently improbable that a conspiracy to commit murder would be hatched loudly and openly during a marriage feast, within earshot of a passer-by.

• Weak Explanation: His explanation that he treated it as "loose talk" was found to be unconvincing, given the gravity of the threat he claimed to have overheard.

C. The Deficiencies in the 'Last Seen' Evidence (PW-3 & PW-4)

The Court critically analyzed the testimonies of the "last seen" witnesses and found them insufficient to sustain a conviction.

• Unreliable Identification: PW-3 admitted he did not know the Appellants previously. Despite this, no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted. The Supreme Court, relying on P. Sasikumar vs State (2024) 8 SCC 600, held that dock identification without a prior TIP, when the witness is a stranger to the accused, has little evidentiary value and is a "fatal flaw."

• Lack of Corroboration: PW-3's wife and son, who were allegedly present with him, were not examined by the prosecution, creating a serious lacuna.

• Wide Time Gap and Vague Testimonies: The Court referred to a catena of judgments, including State of U.P. vs Satish (2005) 3 SCC 114 and Krishan Kumar vs State of Haryana (2023), to reiterate that the "last seen" theory is a weak type of evidence and can only be used when the time gap between the accused and deceased being seen together and the death is so narrow that the possibility of anyone else committing the crime is impossible. In this case, the time gap between the alleged sightings (morning/evening of June 5) and the recovery of the body (morning of June 6) was too wide to exclude the intervention of others.

D. The Neutral and Inconclusive Scientific Evidence

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the lower courts for ignoring the inconclusive Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. The axe, rope, and clothes, when finally sent for DNA testing upon the High Court's direction, yielded no complete DNA profiles and thus could not be matched to the Appellants. The Court held that in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, such neutral scientific evidence must be given due weight. To convict on doubtful oral testimony while ignoring scientific tests that neither support nor contradict the prosecution is to substitute suspicion for proof.

E. Absence of Motive and Juvenility

The Court noted that the alleged motive (revenge for an insult) was vague and unproven. While the absence of motive is not fatal, it assumes significance in a weak circumstantial evidence case and tilts the balance in favour of the accused. On the issue of juvenility of two Appellants, the Court found it unnecessary to rule definitively since it was allowing the appeal on merits, but it noted that the summary rejection of the plea by the Juvenile Justice Board reinforced the perception of an incomplete appreciation of evidence.

5. Final Outcome of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the conviction order of the Trial Court. The Appellants, Nazim, Aftab, and Arman Ali, were acquitted of all charges under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B of the IPC. As they were already on bail, their bail bonds were discharged.

Multiple Choice Questions Based on the Judgment

1. In the case of Nazim & Ors. vs State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 1184), the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants primarily because?
a) The eyewitnesses turned hostile during the trial.
b) The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
c) The appellants were proven to be juveniles at the time of the offense.
d) The victim's father admitted to filing a false FIR.

b) The prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.

2. According to the Supreme Court's analysis, which of the following was a critical factor that rendered the 'last seen' evidence unreliable?
a) The witness was a close relative of the deceased.
b) The accused persons were seen with the deceased for several days.
c) No Test Identification Parade was conducted for witnesses who were strangers to the accused.
d) The 'last seen' witness was himself a suspect in the case.

c) No Test Identification Parade was conducted for witnesses who were strangers to the accused.