Yunus v. State of Uttarakhand

seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 53 of 2023, registered at Police Station Vanbhoolpura, District Nainital, for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.

2. The FIR was lodged on 04.03.2023 by Afsar Khan (PW-1), the brother of the deceased Seema Khan, alleging that she was found lying dead in her rented accommodation with a deep incised wound on her neck. It was stated that the applicant, husband of the deceased, was present in the house at the relevant time and was seen running away after a quarrel.

3. The post-mortem report notes a single transverse chop wound to the neck and opines the cause of death to be hemorrhagic shock due to that injury, which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature. 1

4. Charge sheet has been filed under Section 302 IPC and the case is now pending trial as Sessions Trial No. 35 of 2023. The applicant has been in custody since 05.03.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated due to strained matrimonial ties with the deceased. It was argued that the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and that none of the witnesses examined so far are eyewitnesses to the incident.

6. The testimonies of key prosecution witnesses like PW 1 and PW 3 are stated to contain material contradictions and inconsistencies. Though the alleged murder weapon was recovered, it was not sent for any forensic analysis conclusively implicate Applicant.

7. The applicant further submits that none of the neighbours/ PW-4 Mohd. Shahid, PW-5 Mohd. Nasir, PW-6 Farha, PW-7 Asif, and PW-8 Jafar had seen the Applicant Leaving the Crime scene after the alleged incident. The Applicant has no previous criminal history, and undertakes to cooperate with the trial and not tamper with evidence.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the application and submitted that eight prosecution witnesses have already been examined, including PW-1 Afsar Khan (complainant), PW-2 Arhan (son of the deceased), PW-3 Khushi Khan (daughter), PW-4 Mohd. Shahid, PW-5 Mohd. Nasir, PW-6 Farha, PW-7 Asif, and PW-8 Jafar. It was submitted that these statements show that the deceased and the applicant were residing 2 together and had a history of discord.

9. The State has relied upon the statement of PW-1 regarding the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence from a drain at the instance of the applicant. He stated that he witnessed the Applicant taking out a knife from a drainage pipe and handing it over to the Police admitting that he used the said knife to kill the deceased. In this regard the State Counsel urged that the overall chain of events forms a prima facie case of guilt.

10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

11. This Court finds that the state’s case is riddled with material inconsistencies, the most notable being the absence of any conclusive forensic linkage between the alleged weapon of offence and the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased. PW-1 Afsar Khan, the informant, deposed that the applicant had taken out a knife from a drainage line and informed the police that it was the weapon used in the offence. In contrast, PW-2 Arhan, son of the deceased, categorically stated that a red-coloured vegetable-cutting knife was lying on the bed next to the dead body and was taken by the police. These statements suggest the existence of two distinct weapons associated with the same incident.

12. Despite two recoveries, nothing on record to show that either weapon was sent for forensic analysis or that any report was received from the Forensic Science Laboratory confirming the presence of human blood, fingerprints, or other biological traces. This omission is not a trivial procedural lapse — it strikes at the root of evidentiary 3 sufficiency. In a homicide case involving the alleged use of a sharp-edged weapon, forensic corroboration is indispensable. The failure to conduct FSL examination, or to place such findings before the Court, deprives the State’s case of objective corroboration.

13. In cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the importance of forensic corroboration cannot be overstated. Each link in the evidentiary chain must be firmly established and collectively point unerringly to the guilt of the accused.

14. Furthermore, the contradiction between the FIR and the testimony of PW-3 Khushi Khan further weakens the prosecution story. While the FIR states that the neighbours informed the Complainants that they saw the Applicant leaving the site of the Murder after a quarrel with the deceased, PW-3, the daughter of the deceased, categorically stated in her deposition that no such information was provided by any neighbour or tenant. Such inconsistencies are material, as they affect both the origin of the investigation and the credibility of the witnesses. 15 . In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and must point only to the guilt of the accused. The present case, as it currently stands, fails to meet that threshold. ORDER

16. Considering prolonged incarceration, 4 contradictions evidence, forensic corroboration, and the fact that material witnesses have already been examined, this Court finds it to be a fit case for grant of bail.

17. The bail application is accordingly allowed. Let the applicant–Yunus–be released on bail in FIR No. 53 of 2023, Police Station Vanbhoolpura, District Nainital, under Section 302 IPC, on furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions: (i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or influence any witness. (ii) The applicant shall appear on all dates fixed by the Trial Court and cooperate with proceedings. (iii) The applicant shall not leave the State of Uttarakhand without prior permission of the Trial Court. (iv) It is made clear that in case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be open to the State to move for cancellation of bail. (ASHISH NAITHANI, J.) Dated: 28.03.2025 NR/ 5