“Enmity Is a Double-Edged Weapon”: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused After Three Decades, Citing “Serious Doubts” in Testimonies and Procedural Irregularities
Isabella Mariam
The Supreme Court of India acquitted an individual convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code after finding that material inconsistencies in witness testimonies, procedural lapses, and delayed statements cast “serious doubts” on the prosecution’s case. The bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih recorded, “From the nature of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the possibility of the present appellant being falsely implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out.”
The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered by Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, set aside concurrent findings of conviction recorded by the trial court and the High Court in a case involving the death of a man during an altercation in 1994. The Court found that there were significant contradictions in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses and procedural delays in recording their statements. It recorded that the conduct of the witnesses appeared unnatural, and their statements failed to inspire confidence. The bench held that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the appellant. The Court also stated, “enmity is a double-edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication.”
The matter arose from an incident on 22 August 1994, when the deceased, Zahid Khan alias Guddu, was allegedly attacked with a butcher’s knife by the appellant during a quarrel in “Naya Mohalla” area. The information was recorded at Omti Police Station in Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. Shahid Khan (PW-1), the brother of the deceased, was stated to be an eyewitness and informed the police. An FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC, and the appellant was arrested on 25 August 1994. Upon his disclosure, a blood-stained knife was recovered from his residence.
According to the prosecution, the appellant inflicted multiple injuries on the deceased’s hands, thighs, and neck using a knife. The injured was taken to Victoria Hospital and then to the Medical College, where he succumbed to his injuries around 2:10 PM on the same day. A panchnama was prepared, and investigation followed, culminating in the filing of a charge sheet under Section 302 IPC. The trial court, vide judgment dated 21 November 1995, convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, by judgment dated 26 September 2024, upheld the conviction.
The appellant challenged the concurrent findings in appeal before the Supreme Court.
During the hearing, counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution witnesses were inconsistent in their testimonies and could not be relied upon. It was further submitted that the statements of key witnesses were recorded with an inordinate delay. It was also contended that the case, at best, attracted Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and not Section 302.
On behalf of the State, it was argued that the trial court and the High Court had appreciated the evidence in accordance with law and that the guilt of the appellant had been established beyond reasonable doubt through the testimonies of eyewitnesses.
The prosecution primarily relied on the statements of Shahid Khan (PW-1), Rassu (PW-2), Asif Khan (PW-3), and Saiyad Wahid Ali (PW-4). Shahid Khan stated that he witnessed the incident and assisted in transporting the deceased to the hospital. However, in cross-examination, he admitted to having no bloodstains on his clothes, despite claiming to have carried the injured. It was also brought on record that he did not inform the police or the hospital staff about having witnessed the incident.
Rassu (PW-2) admitted that his shop was situated 25-30 feet from the location of the incident. He further admitted that he neither informed the police constable standing nearby nor called the police station, despite being aware of the occurrence. He also stated that the knife recovered was not the one used in the assault.
Asif Khan (PW-3) deposed that he witnessed the appellant assaulting the deceased and stated that he took the injured to the hospital. However, the Court recorded that his statement was not recorded until 8 October 1994—45 days after the incident—and no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay. The Court noted the inconsistency between his testimony and that of Shahid Khan and Rassu regarding how and when the deceased was transported.
Saiyad Wahid Ali (PW-4) admitted in cross-examination that he had not personally witnessed the incident but was testifying based on hearsay. The Court recorded, “It is true that I did not see Imran inflicting the injuries, I am saying this based on hearsay.”
The Court also noted that the medical evidence and investigation report recorded no mention of the identities of the assailant being informed to hospital authorities at the time of treatment. The other prosecution witnesses were declared hostile.
Upon examining the depositions and evidence, the Court recorded, “The conduct of this witness either not finding it necessary to inform to the police about the incident when the Police Station was only at a 4-5 minute walk or not even finding it necessary to inform the police on telephone... would make his evidence unnatural.”
The bench also took into account the contradictions in witness testimonies about their presence at the scene, the absence of bloodstains on their clothes, and failure to report the identity of the assailant during initial medical treatment.
The Court recorded, “From the perusal of the evidence of Shahid Khan (PW-1), we do not find that the testimony of this witness is the one which would inspire confidence.”
With respect to the credibility of the prosecution's case, the Court stated, “The contradictions in the evidence of witnesses with regard to presence of each other at the place of incident... and the recording of the statement of the witnesses after a long gap... clearly casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution witnesses.”
It was also noted that the deceased was a history-sheeter facing multiple criminal cases, including one for attempt to murder, and that there was admitted prior enmity between the deceased and the appellant. In this regard, the Court observed, “It is a settled law that enmity is a double-edged weapon.”
Finding the prosecution case to be unreliable, the Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and the High Court. The order stated:
“The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26th September 2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1996 and the judgment and order dated 21st November 1995 passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No.1023 of 1994 are quashed and set aside.”
“The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him.”
“The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.”
Pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Advocate
Case Title: Aslam Alias Imran vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 403
Case Number: SLP(Criminal) No. 15254 of 2024
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih
[Read/Download order]
