Supreme Court Acquits Three Men, Holds Circumstantial Case Failed to Establish Unbroken Chain of Guilt

A bench of Justices M. M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the criminal appeal filed by Nazim and two others against the Uttarakhand High Court’s affirmation of their convictions for the murder of a ten‑year‑old boy. The appellants challenged concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court that had convicted them under Sections 302, 201 and 120‑B of the IPC, relying largely on alleged overheard conspiracy, last‑seen testimony and recovery of a rope and an axe.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted Nazim, Aftab and Arman Ali. The bench held that the prosecution had failed to prove a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only to the guilt of the accused. The Court emphasised established principles governing circumstantial evidence and cautioned that last‑seen testimony and after‑thought identification carried limited weight in the absence of corroboration or scientific confirmation. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is trite that in such cases, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other hypothesis. This Court in its decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, held that before a conviction can be sustained on circumstantial evidence, five conditions must be fulfilled: (i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully established; (ii) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt; (iii) they should be of a conclusive nature; (iv) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except that of guilt; and (v) there must be a chain of evidence so complete that it leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with innocence." The Court further stated that "suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof."

Background The dispute arose from the death of Muntiyaz Ali, aged ten, whose body was found on 6 June 2007 with a rope tightened around his neck, hands bound and an axe nearby. The FIR named six villagers as suspects but did not mention two of the eventual appellants, Nazim and Aftab; they were implicated later during investigation. The trial court convicted Nazim, Aftab and Arman Ali on circumstantial evidence and sentenced them to life imprisonment; five other accused were acquitted. The Uttarakhand High Court dismissed appeals and affirmed conviction, accepting testimony of three prosecution witnesses — a scribe who alleged he overheard a conspiracy, and two witnesses who gave last‑seen accounts.

On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed whether the chain of circumstances was complete and exclusive of other hypotheses. It scrutinised omissions in the FIR, delays and plausibility problems in the scribe’s account, the absence of a Test Identification Parade for witnesses who admitted they did not previously know the accused, and the temporal gaps between alleged sightings and the recovery of the body. The Court noted that the axe and rope were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory only on High Court direction during appeal and that FSL testing produced no complete DNA profiles; the scientific evidence therefore remained neutral. The Court held that dock identification without prior TIP and delayed or inconsistent eyewitness statements could not sustain conviction where scientific corroboration was absent. The Court found the prosecution’s motive evidence speculative, observed that the medical report established homicidal death but did not link injuries to the appellants, and concluded that the evidence left reasonable room for doubt. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and trial court to the extent of the convictions and sentences under Sections 302, 201 and 120‑B IPC, acquitted the appellants and discharged their bail bonds and sureties.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1184 (Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2018) Case Title: Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Advocates not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Advocates not indicated in the judgment]