The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, ruling the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The Court found the testimonies of key witnesses unreliable, the “last seen” theory inapplicable due to a long time gap, and the absence of a Test Identification Parade for strangers fatal to the case, creating reasonable doubt.
Facts Of The Case:
The case concerns the tragic death of ten-year-old Muntiyaz Ali, who went missing on the morning of June 5, 2007, after going to his family’s mango orchard. His father, Nanhe Khan, discovered the boy’s lifeless body the next morning near a pit on their land. The body was found with a rope around its neck, hands tied behind the back, and a blood-stained axe lying nearby. Khan filed a police report suspecting six co-villagers due to a long-standing enmity, but the appellants, Nazim and Aftab, were not initially named. During the investigation, Nazim, Aftab, and Arman Ali were implicated. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, primarily the testimony of witnesses who claimed to have overheard a conspiracy to seek revenge and who allegedly saw the deceased with the appellants. Based on this, the trial court convicted the three appellants for murder, destroying evidence, and criminal conspiracy, sentencing them to life imprisonment, a decision later upheld by the High Court.
Procedural History:
The case originated with the registration of an FIR under Section 302 of the IPC on June 6, 2007, following the discovery of a boy’s body. After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the case proceeded to trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kashipur. The Trial Court, in its judgment dated April 5, 2014, acquitted five co-accused but convicted the present appellants (Nazim, Aftab, and Arman Ali) under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants filed an appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court, vide its impugned judgment dated November 15, 2017, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellants then exercised their final statutory right of appeal by challenging the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court of India, which, in its judgment dated October 6, 2025, allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and acquitted all three appellants.
READ ALSO:No Waiver Without Clear Intent: Supreme Court Sets Aside Arbitral Award for Violating ‘No Oral Modification’ Clause
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court meticulously dissected the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence and found it gravely insufficient. It observed that the testimonies of the key witnesses were unreliable, noting that the alleged conspiracy was inherently improbable and the “last seen” theory failed as the time-gap was too wide to exclude intervention by others. The Court strongly criticized the absence of a Test Identification Parade for witnesses who were strangers to the accused, rendering their dock identification worthless. It further held that the neutral DNA report, which failed to connect the appellants to the crime, could not be ignored in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the chain of circumstances was not complete and left room for reasonable doubt, emphasizing that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof.
Final Decision & Judgement:
In its final judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted all three appellants—Nazim, Aftab, and Arman Ali—of all charges, including murder under Section 302, destruction of evidence under Section 201, and criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, creating reasonable doubt about the appellants’ guilt. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand and the conviction order of the Trial Court were set aside. As the appellants were already on bail, the Court directed that their bail bonds and sureties stand discharged.
Case Details:
Case Title: Nazim & Ors. vs. The State of Uttarakhand Citation: 2025 INSC 1184 Criminal Appeal No.: Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2018 Date of Judgement: October 06, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Download The Judgement Here