Supreme Court Acquits Nazim, Aftab and Arman Ali in 10-Year-Old Boy’s Murder, Cites Gaps in Circumstantial Evidence and Unreliable Last-Seen Testimony

Case Name: Nazim & Ors. v. State of Uttarakhand
Date of Judgment: October 6, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1184, Criminal Appeal No. 715 of 2018
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Held: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants Nazim, Aftab, and Arman Ali, who were convicted for the murder of a 10-year-old boy in 2007. It held that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances consistent only with their guilt. The Court stressed that suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof, and that the testimonies of key witnesses were improbable, inconsistent, and tainted with omissions. The last-seen theory was rejected as weak evidence without corroboration, particularly since the sightings were separated by long intervals. The Court also criticized the reliance on dock identification without conducting a Test Identification Parade (TIP) where witnesses had no prior familiarity with the accused. Forensic evidence was found inconclusive, further weakening the case.

Summary: The case stemmed from the murder of a 10-year-old boy, Muntiyaz Ali, whose body was discovered with rope marks and an axe nearby in June 2007. The trial court convicted Nazim, Aftab, and Arman Ali under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction in 2017. On appeal, the Supreme Court noted major deficiencies: Nazim and Aftab were not named in the FIR despite being known to the complainant; PW-2’s claim of overhearing a murder conspiracy at a marriage feast was treated as an afterthought; PW-3’s last-seen account was doubtful as he admitted not knowing the accused earlier, was working 150–200 meters away with obstructed view, and his wife and son—natural witnesses—were not examined; PW-4’s testimony was inconsistent and not mentioned in the FIR. No TIP was held, making dock identification unreliable. Forensic examination of rope, axe, and clothes was inconclusive as no DNA match was established. Motive alleged—revenge for insult to a co-accused’s sister—was speculative. The Court held that all these deficiencies left reasonable doubt, making conviction unsustainable.

Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the Uttarakhand High Court, acquitting all three appellants of charges under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B IPC. Since they were on bail, their bonds and sureties were discharged.