LexNAZIM & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 10 S.C.R. 263 : 2025 INSC 1184 Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2018) 06 October 2025 [M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the Appellants, or whether the circumstances leave room for reasonable doubt warranting acquittal. Headnotes† Circumstantial Evidence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201, 120-B – Conviction of the appellants u/ss.302, 201, 120-B, IPC rested largely on the testimony of three prosecution witnesses, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 – Interference with: Held: 1.1 Prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances – Evidence on record does not complete the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused persons – There are substantial gaps in the case of the prosecution. [Paras 56, 29] 1.2 The first and most glaring circumstance is the omission of the names of the two of the three Appellants in the FIR – PW-1, the complainant and the father of the deceased, expressly named six persons with whom he admittedly had long-standing enmity, yet he did not attribute any role to the present Appellants, ‘N’ and ‘A’ – Both PW-1 and PW-2 were admittedly familiar with them – Despite this, their names were not mentioned in the FIR, nor was any contemporaneous explanation offered for their absence – This significant omission strikes at the root of the prosecution narrative, undermines its credibility, and constitutes a material fact that must weigh heavily in favour of the accused. [Para 29] 1.3 Further, there are improbabilities in PW-2’s testimony, coupled with his unexplained silence at crucial stages – The prosecution then relied on testimonies of PW-3 and PW-4 to establish * Author 264 [2025] 10 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports last-seen circumstance – However, there are serious infirmities in their accounts making their evidence less reliable – The prosecution’s reliance on PW-3 and PW-4 falters on two counts: firstly, the absence of TIP renders their identification unreliable and secondly, even if their testimony is accepted, ‘last-seen’ theory alone is insufficient to sustain the conviction in the circumstances of the present case. [Paras 33, 34, 48] 1.4 The prosecution’s reliance on the last seen theory is misplaced – The interval between the alleged sightings and the discovery of the corpse is too wide to exclude the possibility of intervention by others – The last seen theory applies only when the time gap is so narrow that the hypothesis of another’s involvement is eliminated – That condition is absent here – Last-seen theory alone is weak evidence and requires corroboration, which is absent in this case. [Paras 45, 46] 1.5 Furthermore, though the medical evidence proves the fact of homicidal death but does not implicate the Appellants – The forensic report is neutral, the recovery is procedurally suspect – When the only scientific evidence available neither supports the prosecution’s narrative nor connects the accused to the crime, it is impermissible to uphold a conviction solely on doubtful eyewitness testimony. [Para 53] 1.6 The case of the prosecution with respect to motive is also tenuous – The motive alleged by the prosecution is only that the Appellants sought revenge for an insult to their sister – However, no concrete evidence of animus was led – There is no evidence that the Appellants bore any grudge against a ten-year-old child – Circumstances on record are not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and fail to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis, including their innocence – Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof – Appellants entitled to the benefit of the doubt – Impugned Judgment set aside – Appellants acquitted. [Paras 54, 56] Circumstantial Evidence – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – When can be sustained – Conditions enumerated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, stated. [Para 28] Circumstantial Evidence – Omission in naming accused persons in FIR – Effect: Held: In a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must withstand rigorous scrutiny – The failure to name [2025] 10 S.C.R. 265 Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand two of the three Appellants in the FIR, despite the complainant’s familiarit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.