Supreme Court of India
Nazim & Ors. v. The State of Uttarakhand
INSC stands for INDIAN SUPREME COURT. A neutral citation scheme assigned by the Court itself, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter. INSC is the neutral citation scheme assigned by the Supreme Court, so a judgment can be cited without depending on a commercial law reporter.
What the Court ordered
We are of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances.
Judgment, page 23
From the headnote
Issue for Consideration Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, a complete chain of circumstances leading only to the conclusion of guilt of the Appellants, or whether the circumstances leave room for reasonable doubt warranting acquittal. Headnotes† Circumstantial Evidence – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201, 120- – Conviction of the appellants u/ss.302, 201, 120- , IPC rested largely on the testimony of three prosecution witnesses, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 – Interference with: Held: 1.1 Prosecution failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of
Authorities it was built on
- 1984 Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
- 1973 Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh
- 2005 State of U.P. v. Satish
- 1975 Ram Kumar Pande v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- 2008 Chattar Singh and Anr. v. State of Haryana
- 2007 Hatti Singh v. State of Haryana
- 2024 P. Sasikumar v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
- 2023 Krishan Kumar and Anr v. The State of Haryana
- 2025 Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha
Sign in free to read it
- The full judgment, page by page, as published in the Supreme Court Reports
- The ratio: what the Court held, verbatim, with the page it sits on
- Every bench that relied on it, and every bench that argued against it
- Search every reported judgment, by party, citation or question
- Download the PDF, copy pinpoint citations ready for a filing
An email address, no password.