Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has allowed two appeals, setting aside the convictions of three appellants in a case involving the murder of Ahsan Ali. The Court found significant inconsistencies in witness testimonies, inadequacies in the investigation, and a lack of credible evidence connecting the accused to the crime. The convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court were quashed, granting the appellants the benefit of doubt.

The case originated from an FIR lodged on June 25, 1988, at Maqbara Police Station, Kota, Rajasthan. The informant, Faeem Ahmed, alleged that he and Ahsan Ali were on their way to Ahsan Ali’s in-laws' residence when they were attacked by a group of armed assailants near Ghantaghar around midnight. The assailants, identified as Abdul Wahid, Babu, Abdul Sattar, Aziz @ Patti, Abdul Shakur, Bundu, and Latur Ali, allegedly assaulted Ahsan Ali with knives and a katar (sword).

"The first knife injury was inflicted by Babu on the stomach of Ahsan Ali whereafter he fell down from the motorcycle; the second injury was inflicted by Abdul Wahid on the chest of Ahsan Ali, also by knife; Abdul Sattar inflicted injury by a katar (sword) on the backside of Ahsan Ali. Abdul Shakur and Aziz @ Patti who were also trying to inflict injuries on Ahsan Ali, chased the informant Faeem Ahmed."

Ahsan Ali was taken to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries, leading to the addition of Section 302 IPC to the FIR. The police charged eight individuals under Sections 147, 148, 149, and 302 IPC. During the trial, four accused—Abdul Sattar, Bundu, Latur Ali, and Aziz @ Patti—passed away, leading to the abatement of proceedings against them.

The trial court convicted the remaining three accused—Abdul Wahid, Babu, and Abdul Shakur—under Sections 302/148 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The Rajasthan High Court upheld the conviction but modified the charge to Section 302 with the aid of Section 149 IPC.

The Supreme Court examined the depositions of key witnesses and identified contradictions and inconsistencies that raised doubts about the prosecution's case. The testimony of PW-1, Faeem Ahmed, the informant, was central to the case as he claimed to have witnessed the attack and identified the assailants. However, the Court noted inconsistencies in his account, observing that "PW-1 contradicted himself by first saying that Ahsan was injured by the knife blows before he fell down from the motorcycle but in the same breath, he goes on to say that Ahsan was stabbed after he fell down." The Court also found that PW-1 was an interested witness, being a close associate of the deceased, and had a history of involvement in multiple criminal cases. It was observed that "besides being entangled in several criminal cases, it has also come on record that he is a stock witness of the police to depose in favor of the police in other cases including in a case where one of the present accused persons Aziz @ Patti was an accused. Evidence of such a witness without further corroboration cannot form the basis to convict an accused."

The testimony of PW-4, Wahid, the brother-in-law of the deceased, initially aligned with the prosecution's case but later turned hostile. The Court noted that his statements were inconsistent regarding his presence at the crime scene. He testified that "when he and Jameel (PW-3) had reached Ghantaghar, they saw a crowd of 100 to 150 people saying that a man (Ahsan) had been killed." His failure to provide assistance to the victim and his changing narrative raised concerns about the reliability of his testimony.

PW-3, Jameel, also turned hostile during cross-examination, contradicting his earlier statements. His failure to take any action following the attack further weakened the prosecution's case. The Court recorded that "in cross-examination, he stated that he neither rescued Ahsan nor went to the police station to lodge a report. He also did not go to the hospital."

The Supreme Court identified several deficiencies in the police investigation that further undermined the case. The investigating authorities failed to seize the motorcycle that Ahsan was riding at the time of the attack. The Court noted that "from the evidence of PW-17 and PW-20, it is evident that the motorcycle which was being driven by Ahsan when he was assaulted was not seized." Additionally, no efforts were made to collect blood samples from the crime scene for forensic examination. The judgment observed that "the investigating officer ought to have collected samples of blood soil and sent the same for forensic examination which would have proved whether the said blood matched the blood of the deceased. But this was not done."

The credibility of the weapon recoveries was also questioned. The Court found that the weapons allegedly seized from the accused were not shown to the medical examiner and were not produced in court. The judgment recorded that "PW-15, the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination, deposed in his evidence that the seized weapons were not shown to him. As a matter of fact, the knives etc. were also not produced in court. Besides, all the seizure witnesses turned hostile."

Another inconsistency noted by the Court was the delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate. Although the FIR was registered on June 25, 1988, at 12:30 AM, it was not forwarded to the magistrate until June 27, 1988. The Court observed that "though the same was registered on 25.06.1988 around midnight (12:30 PM), it was forwarded to the concerned magistrate only two days thereafter on 27.06.1988."

The medical evidence and postmortem findings also did not fully align with the prosecution's case. PW-15, the doctor who conducted the postmortem, identified eight stab wounds on the deceased’s body and concluded that "the cause of death was on account of excessive bleeding. According to him, death was due to hemorrhage shock as a result of multiple stab wounds over the body." However, discrepancies arose when the medical examiner noted that all injuries could have been inflicted by a single weapon, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that multiple accused inflicted wounds with different weapons. The Court recorded that "PW-15 stated that all the injuries from injury No. 1 to injury No. 8 could well be inflicted by only one weapon as the injuries were of the same nature." This inconsistency raised further doubts about the prosecution’s theory.

After examining the evidence, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment stated:

"There is no doubt that the death of Ahsan is homicidal. Medical evidence has also confirmed multiple stab injuries on his body leading to profuse bleeding and death. According to the prosecution, it is the accused who had committed murder of Ahsan. Therefore, it is for the prosecution to connect the accused to the murder of the deceased by producing credible and legally admissible evidence. However, as we have seen, there is no credible evidence at all to connect the accused persons with the homicidal death of Ahsan."

The Supreme Court granted the appellants the benefit of doubt and set aside their convictions.

"Consequently, we allow the two appeals by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 26.08.2011 and of the trial court dated 10.03.2003. Conviction and sentence of the appellants are accordingly set aside."

Case Title: Abdul Wahid & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan; Abdul Shakur vs. State of Rajasthan

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 295

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2012 & Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2012

Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan

[Read/Download order]