2025 Supreme(SC) 1767

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. M. SUNDRESH, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Nazim & Ors. – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2018
Decided On : 06-10-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS(1) Murder – Last-seen theory cannot be applied in absence of clear and positive testimony placing deceased in company of accused at a proximate time before occurrence.(2) Murder – When only scientific evidence available neither supports prosecution’s narrative nor connects accused to crime, it is impermissible to uphold conviction solely on doubtful eyewitness testimony.(3) Juvenility – Summary rejection of juvenility plea cannot be countenanced.

Headnote:

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 201 and 120-B – Murder, disappearance of evidence and conspiracy – Life imprisonment – Circumstantial evidence – In such cases, prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances consistent only with guilt of accused and inconsistent with any other hypothesis – If circumstances proved are consistent either with innocence or guilt, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt, and that where two views are possible, one favourable to accused must be adopted – In present case, evidence on record can in no fathomable circumstance complete chain of circumstances pointing to guilt of accused persons – Prosecution case reveals substantial gaps – In a case based solely on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance must withstand rigorous scrutiny – Failure to name two of three Appellants in FIR, despite complainant’s familiarity with them, casts a serious shadow on subsequent attempt to implicate them – This significant omission strikes at root of prosecution narrative, undermines its credibility, and constitutes a material fact that must weigh heavily in favour of accused – Last-seen circumstance is not credible – Dock identification without a prior TIP has little evidentiary value where witness had no prior familiarity with accused – Despite inconclusive forensic report, High Court dismissed absence of DNA evidence as inconsequential and affirmed conviction solely on ocular testimony – Such approach is untenable in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence – Where scientific evidence is neutral or exculpatory, courts must give it due weight – To convict on doubtful testimony while ignoring scientific tests is to substitute suspicion for proof – Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence – Medical evidence proves fact of homicidal death but does not implicate Appellants – Forensic report is neutral, recovery is procedurally suspect, and High Court failed to grapple with these deficiencies – When only scientific evidence available neither supports prosecution’s narrative nor connects accused to crime, it is impermissible to uphold conviction solely on doubtful eyewitness testimony – Absence of motive in a circumstantial case assumes significance and tilts balance in favour of accused – Supposed motive is speculative and there is no evidence that Appellants bore any grudge against a ten-years-old child – Appellants acquitted from all charges. (Paras 28, 29, 30, 34, 41, 47, 51, 53, 54, 56 and 57)

(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – ‘Last-seen’ theory – Last-seen theory is a weak kind of evidence – It would be unsafe to base conviction solely on this circumstance unless it is corroborated by some other strong and clinching material – Last seen theory applies only when time gap is so narrow that hypothesis of another’s involvement is eliminated – That condition is absent here – Last-seen theory cannot be applied in absence of clear and positive testimony placing deceased in company of accused at a proximate time before occurrence – Doctrine cannot be stretched to presume such presence indirectly, nor can conjectures substitute proof – Any indirect application of last-seen theory is impermissible. (Paras 44 and 45)

(C) Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 – Juvenility – Rule 12 of JJ Act gives primacy to matriculation or equivalent school certificate, or in its absence a birth certificate or medical opinion – Summary rejection of juvenility plea reinforces overall perception that High Court did not fully re-appreciate evidence. (Para 55)

Facts of the case:

Appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and acquitted under Section 377 of IPC. Trial Court sentenced each of them to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 of IPC, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. For offence under Section 201 of IPC, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.3,000/- each. By its judgment dated 15.11.2017, High Court dismissed the appeals.

Findings of Court:

Conviction and sentence of Appellants under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC, as affirmed by High Court in its judgment dated 15.11.2017, cannot be sustained.

Result : Appeal allowed.