SCOI Acquits Appellants in Child Murder Case: Circumstantial Evidence Fails

In a significant reaffirmation of the principles governing circumstantial evidence, the Supreme Court in Nazim & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 1184) set aside the conviction of three men accused of the brutal murder of a ten-year-old boy in 2007.

The Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances conclusively pointing to the guilt of the accused, underscoring once again that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof.

What's The Matter?

The case arose from the tragic death of young Muntiyaz Ali, whose body was found under a mulberry tree in his family’s orchard, with a rope around his neck and an axe lying nearby.

The investigation, originally directed against six villagers with whom the complainant’s family had a long-standing feud, later implicated Nazim and Aftab who were not even named in the original FIR.

Both the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court convicted them under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment based solely on circumstantial evidence.

What The Court Said?

The Supreme Court, speaking through Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma, subjected the entire evidentiary record to close scrutiny. It noted that the alleged conspiracy testimony by PW-2, the scribe of the FIR, was riddled with inconsistencies especially since he failed to mention any such conspiracy at the time of the report and remained silent even after the discovery of the body.

The Court found it improbable that a murder plot could have been openly discussed at a public feast and later remembered only during trial.

Equally unconvincing were the testimonies of the “last-seen” witnesses, PW-3 and PW-4, who identified the accused for the first time in court without any test identification parade (TIP).

The Bench observed that when witnesses have no prior familiarity with the accused, such in-court identification carries little evidentiary value unless preceded by a TIP.

Their statements were further weakened by inconsistencies and the absence of corroboration from natural witnesses, including family members present during the alleged sighting.

The Court reiterated that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be firmly established and form an unbroken chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused. Referring to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) and State of U.P. v. Satish (2005), it emphasised that if two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail.

On the scientific front, the Court criticised the investigative lapses, particularly the failure to send the axe for timely forensic testing.

The DNA report obtained later was inconclusive, neither linking the accused to the crime nor corroborating the prosecution’s case.

The Bench held that such neutrality in scientific evidence, when read with doubtful witness testimony, could not sustain a conviction. The alleged motive revenge for an insult to a relative was termed vague and unsubstantiated.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court acquitted Nazim, Aftab, and Arman Ali, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The judgment is a sharp reminder that criminal convictions cannot be upheld on conjecture or defective investigation. The decision reinforces the “five golden principles” of circumstantial evidence and serves as a caution against mechanical affirmation of lower court findings without independent scrutiny.

Disclaimer:This article is a legal analysis written for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion.