Nazim vs State of Uttarakhand 2025 INSC 1184 - Criminal Trial - FIR - Failure To Name Accused In FIR

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 11 - When important facts are omitted in the FIR, such omissions are relevant under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act , in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. (Para 29) [Context: In this case, SC held that the failure to name two of the three accused in the FIR, despite the complainant’s familiarity with them, casts a serious shadow on the subsequent attempt to implicate them]

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence- 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. These “five golden principles” constitute the panchsheel of circumstantial evidence- If the circumstances proved are consistent either with innocence or guilt, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and that where two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted. (Para 28) Motive - Absence of motive in a circumstantial case assumes significance and tilts the balance in favour of the accused.(Para 54) Criminal Trial - Dock identification without a prior TIP has little evidentiary value where the witness had no prior familiarity with the accused. (Para 41) TIP is only part of the investigative process and that the substantive evidence is dock identification; however, where the accused is a stranger to the witness and no TIP is held, courts must exercise extreme caution in accepting such identification. (Para 42) - Last Seen Theory - The ‘last‑seen’ theory is itself a weak link unless the prosecution establishes a narrow time gap between when the accused and the deceased were seen together and the recovery of the body, such that the possibility of intervention by a third person is excluded. (Para 44) -Scientific 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.  (Para 51)

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 - Rule 12 gives primacy to matriculation or equivalent school certificate, or in its absence a birth certificate or medical opinion. (Para 55)