Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 403
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 15254 of 2024)
ASLAM ALIAS IMRAN ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and
th
order dated 26 September 2024, passed by the Division
1
Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1996 filed by the Appellant herein
whereby the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and
upheld the order of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.03.27
15:48:35 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”.
1
2
(M.P.) passed in Sessions Trial No. 1023 of 1994 thereby
convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of Indian
3
Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
3.
Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal
are as under:
nd
3.1. On 22 August 1994, at noon, the information about an
attack on the deceased Zahid Khan alias Guddu was given to
Omti Police Station and thereafter a Dehati was written by
Sub-Inspector A.K Bajpai (PW-12) at 01:30 PM.
3.2. FIR No. 461/1994 was registered at Omti P.S on the
same date narrating the attack on the deceased as per the
information shared by Shahid Khan (PW-1) - the brother of the
deceased. The prosecution case is as follows:
nd
On 22 August 1994, at around 12.30 PM an abusive
quarrel broke out on the road between the accused-appellant
Aslam alias Imran and the deceased at an area “Naya
Mohalla”. The accused thereafter attacked the deceased with
a butcher knife ( baka ) causing multiple injuries on his hands
and thighs, and a deep wound on his neck leading to the
2
Hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”.
3
Hereinafter referred to as “IPC”.
2
deceased bleeding profusely. The accused fled away from the
scene, and the injured deceased was taken by Shahid Khan
(PW-1) and others to Victoria Hospital where upon seeing his
critical condition, he was shifted to the Medical College.
3.3. The accused succumbed to the injuries on the same day
at around 02:10 PM. The Lash Panchnama was written on the
same day by Sub–Inspector Vajpayee (PW-11) and signed by
Shahid Khan (PW-1) and others. The investigation began,
blood on the soil at the spot of crime was seized and the body
was sent for medical examination.
th
3.4. The accused was arrested on 25 August 1994. Based on
the disclosure made by the accused, the blood-stained butcher
knife ( baka ) was discovered from a container at the residence
of the accused.
3.5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC. Since the case was exclusively triable
by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the Sessions Court.
st
3.6. Vide judgment and order dated 21 November 1995, the
trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable
3
under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life
imprisonment.
3.7. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
upheld the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the
appellant under Section 302 of IPC, and directed the appellant
who was out on bail to surrender before the trial court to
undergo the remaining part of his jail sentence.
3.8. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Mrinal
Gopal Elker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State.
5. Mr. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant submits that the perusal of the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses would reveal that the said witnesses are
not trustworthy and their testimonies are inconsistent to each
other. As such, the conviction on the basis of such testimonies
would not be sustainable in law.
6. In the alternative, Mr. Hegde submits that even if the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses is taken at its face value,
it would clearly reveal that there was a quarrel between the
4
appellant and the deceased. It is the deceased who was having
a knife. As a result of the quarrel, the appellant picked up the
knife of the deceased and assaulted him. He therefore submits
that it is thus clear that the prosecution has failed to prove
that the appellant-accused had any intention of causing death
of the deceased. He submits that, in any case, the appellant
would be entitled to benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of
IPC and the case would not fall under the category of Section
302 of IPC.
7. Per contra, Ms. Elker, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State submits that the perusal of the testimonies
of eye-witnesses would reveal that the prosecution has proved
the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that both
the trial court and the High Court, upon correct appreciation
of evidence, had come to a conclusion that it is the appellant-
accused who had committed the murder of the deceased and
as such, no interference is warranted in the present appeal.
8. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the
appellant and the State, we have scrutinized the material
placed on record.
5
9. The prosecution basically relies on the evidence of
Shahid Khan s/o Babu Khan (PW-1), who is brother of the
deceased, Rassu s/o Abdul Gaffar (PW-2), Asif Khan s/o Yusuf
Khan (PW-3) and Saiyad Wahid Ali s/o Saiyad Abid Ali (PW-4).
10. Insofar as Shahid Khan (PW-1) is concerned, in his
examination-in-chief, he stated that, on the date of the
incident at around 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM, when he was
drinking tea at Gop Chai Wala’s shop, accused Aslam @ Imran
and deceased Guddu started abusing each other. He stated
that, at the same time, accused Aslam @ Imran attacked
deceased Guddu with a Baka. He stated that thereafter he and
some others picked the deceased Guddu up and took him to
the hospital. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the
hand and head of deceased Guddu was on his shoulder. He
also admitted that a lot of blood was oozing out of the body of
the deceased Guddu. He further admitted that though he was
wearing a vest, there was no blood on his vest. He further
stated that deceased Guddu’s blood did not fall on the person
of Asif Khan (PW-3) who was also with them.
11. From the deposition of Shahid Khan (PW-1), it is clear
that though he states that he had witnessed the incident, he
6
did not report about the same either at the Police Station,
which was a short distance away, or at Victoria Hospital.
12. The evidence of this witness is contradictory with that of
Abbi s/o Manjoor Khan (PW-6). Abbi (PW-6) stated that when
he saw deceased Guddu in injured condition, Shahid Khan
(PW-1) was not there. Shahid Khan (PW-1) came only after
Abbi (PW-6) called him through one Mukhtar.
13. A perusal of the testimony of Shahid Khan (PW-1) when
compared with the testimony of Abbi (PW-6), clearly casts a
doubt on the truthfulness of this witness. If the deceased
Guddu was carried by Shahid Khan (PW-1) and if the hand
and head of the deceased Guddu were on his shoulder, then
the absence of bloodstains on his clothes creates a serious
doubt about the veracity of his version. Apart from that, he
has clearly admitted that though he had seen the incident, he
had not narrated about the same either to the Police Station
or at Victoria Hospital. It is to be noted that Shahid Khan (PW-
1) is the brother of deceased Guddu and as such, is an
interested witness. No doubt that merely a witness being an
interested witness cannot be a ground for discarding his
testimony. However, the evidence of such a witness is required
7
to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.
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.
14. Rassu (PW-2), in his evidence, stated that, on the date of
the incident, there was an altercation between the deceased
Guddu and the appellant-accused and after that the
appellant-accused stabbed deceased Guddu with a knife. He
stated that his cycle shop was at a distance of 25-30 feet away
from the place of the incident. In his cross-examination, he
stated that the knife which was alleged to have been recovered
from the appellant-accused, was not the same knife which was
used in committing the crime. He admitted in his cross-
examination that the Omti Police Station was at a 5-minute
walk from the scene of incident. He further admitted that a
police constable was also standing at a distance of about 50
steps from the place of the incident. However, neither did he
find it necessary to go and inform the police constable about
the incident nor did he find it necessary to go to the Police
Station which was at a distance of a 5-minute walk. He further
admitted that though there was a telephone in the Capital
8
Lodge which was just opposite his cycle shop, neither did he
find necessary to make a call to the Police Station nor did he
ask anyone to make a call to the Police Station and inform
about the incident. He further admitted that he did not know
as to how the quarrel started. He further stated that when he
saw the accused and the deceased Guddu after the abuse,
they were empty handed. He further admitted that the blood
of the deceased Guddu had stained the clothes of those who
were supporting him. Though he admitted that the house of
the deceased Guddu was at a distance of a 2–4-minute walk,
he did not find it necessary to inform about the incident to his
family members. 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 when the
telephone was available just opposite his shop and further not
informing the Police Constable who was standing at a distance
of 50 feet, would make his evidence unnatural. Though the
house of the deceased was also at a 2-4 minute walk, he did
not find it necessary to inform about the incident to his
relatives.
9
15. Asif Khan (PW-3) stated that on the date of the incident
nd
i.e., 22 August 1994 at around 12:30 PM, when he was
drinking tea at Bajid Tea Hotel, deceased Guddu told him that
he was going to leave his nephew at his parents’ place. He
stated that shortly thereafter, he turned around hearing the
sound of abuses and saw that accused-appellant was abusing
the deceased Guddu. He stated that the accused-appellant hit
deceased Guddu on his right arm with a butcher’s knife and
then on the other hand. He stated that when he was about to
reach there, accused-appellant attacked deceased Guddu’s
neck, as a result of which a lot of blood starting flowing from
the body of deceased Guddu and he fell down. Thereafter, the
accused-appellant ran away. In his cross-examination, he
stated that his statement was recorded initially within 8-12
days from the date of the incident. However, when the counsel
for the appellant during the cross-examination demanded a
copy of his statement recorded within 10-12 days, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor fairly stated that there was no
th
statement of the said witness recorded prior to 8 October
1994. It is thus clear that either his statement was recorded
th
for the first time on 8 October 1994 i.e., after 45 days of the
10
incident or if an earlier statement was recorded, the same was
suppressed. As such, an adverse inference can be drawn on
that count. Subsequently, this witness changed his version
and stated that on the date of the incident he had a scratch
th
injury on his leg and therefore he could not go till 8 October
th
1994 and only on 8 October 1994, he became fit to give a
statement to the police. He also stated that though he had
accompanied the deceased Guddu to the hospital, he did not
tell the doctor that he was killed by the appellant.
16. Next witness is Saiyad Wahid Ali (PW-4). This witness in
his examination-in-chief stated that there was a tussle
between the deceased and the accused and after that the
appellant stabbed the deceased in his neck. It will also be
relevant to refer to his cross-examination, which reads thus:
“It is true that I did not see Imran inflicting the
injuries, I am saying this based on hearsay. Among
those who took Guddu to the hospital, only Abbi was
there and no one else.”
17. It is thus clear that this witness has not personally seen
the incident and was only deposing on the basis of hearsay.
18. It is further to be noted that though Shahid Khan (PW-1)
stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital on a scooter
of Asif Khan (PW-3), Asif Khan (PW-3) stated in his evidence
11
that Shahid Khan (PW-1), Rassu (PW-2) and Wahid Ali (PW-4)
picked deceased Guddu up and took him to Dr. Khan’s
dispensary and thereafter, he was taken to Victoria Hospital.
As such, the evidence of these witnesses is again contradictory
on this point.
19. The other witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution and were declared hostile.
20. It has come in the evidence on record that the deceased
Guddu was a history-sheeter and was facing many criminal
cases including a case for attempt to murder. It has also come
in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that there was a
previous enmity between the deceased and the appellant.
21. The following factors cast a serious doubt on the veracity
of the prosecution witnesses:
(i) The witnesses who were carrying the deceased Guddu
to the hospital not having bloodstains on their clothes;
(ii) The witnesses not informing either the Police Station
or the police constable who was standing at a distance
of about 50 steps from the place of incident;
12
(iii) The contradictions in the evidence of witnesses with
regard to presence of each other at the place of
incident;
(iv) The witnesses not informing the cause of death of the
deceased Guddu in the MLC papers, though according
to them they were aware about the person who had
inflicted the injury on the deceased; and
(v) Recording of the statement of the witnesses after a
long gap after the date of incident when the said
witnesses were very much available.
22. It is a settled law that 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. 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. In our
opinion, therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
23. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed;
th
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 26
September 2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya
13
Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1996
st
and the judgment and order dated 21 November 1995
passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No.1023 of
1994 are quashed and set aside;
(iii) The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled
against him; and
(iv) The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall
stand discharged.
24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 27, 2025.
14
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
2025 INSC 403
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No. 15254 of 2024)
ASLAM ALIAS IMRAN ...APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave Granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and
th
order dated 26 September 2024, passed by the Division
1
Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in
Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1996 filed by the Appellant herein
whereby the High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and
upheld the order of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
Date: 2025.03.27
15:48:35 IST
Reason:
1
Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”.
1
2
(M.P.) passed in Sessions Trial No. 1023 of 1994 thereby
convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of Indian
3
Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
3.
Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal
are as under:
nd
3.1. On 22 August 1994, at noon, the information about an
attack on the deceased Zahid Khan alias Guddu was given to
Omti Police Station and thereafter a Dehati was written by
Sub-Inspector A.K Bajpai (PW-12) at 01:30 PM.
3.2. FIR No. 461/1994 was registered at Omti P.S on the
same date narrating the attack on the deceased as per the
information shared by Shahid Khan (PW-1) - the brother of the
deceased. The prosecution case is as follows:
nd
On 22 August 1994, at around 12.30 PM an abusive
quarrel broke out on the road between the accused-appellant
Aslam alias Imran and the deceased at an area “Naya
Mohalla”. The accused thereafter attacked the deceased with
a butcher knife ( baka ) causing multiple injuries on his hands
and thighs, and a deep wound on his neck leading to the
2
Hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”.
3
Hereinafter referred to as “IPC”.
2
deceased bleeding profusely. The accused fled away from the
scene, and the injured deceased was taken by Shahid Khan
(PW-1) and others to Victoria Hospital where upon seeing his
critical condition, he was shifted to the Medical College.
3.3. The accused succumbed to the injuries on the same day
at around 02:10 PM. The Lash Panchnama was written on the
same day by Sub–Inspector Vajpayee (PW-11) and signed by
Shahid Khan (PW-1) and others. The investigation began,
blood on the soil at the spot of crime was seized and the body
was sent for medical examination.
th
3.4. The accused was arrested on 25 August 1994. Based on
the disclosure made by the accused, the blood-stained butcher
knife ( baka ) was discovered from a container at the residence
of the accused.
3.5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was
filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under
Section 302 of the IPC. Since the case was exclusively triable
by the Sessions Court, it was committed to the Sessions Court.
st
3.6. Vide judgment and order dated 21 November 1995, the
trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable
3
under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life
imprisonment.
3.7. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
upheld the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the
appellant under Section 302 of IPC, and directed the appellant
who was out on bail to surrender before the trial court to
undergo the remaining part of his jail sentence.
3.8. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Mrinal
Gopal Elker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-State.
5. Mr. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant submits that the perusal of the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses would reveal that the said witnesses are
not trustworthy and their testimonies are inconsistent to each
other. As such, the conviction on the basis of such testimonies
would not be sustainable in law.
6. In the alternative, Mr. Hegde submits that even if the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses is taken at its face value,
it would clearly reveal that there was a quarrel between the
4
appellant and the deceased. It is the deceased who was having
a knife. As a result of the quarrel, the appellant picked up the
knife of the deceased and assaulted him. He therefore submits
that it is thus clear that the prosecution has failed to prove
that the appellant-accused had any intention of causing death
of the deceased. He submits that, in any case, the appellant
would be entitled to benefit of Exception 4 of Section 300 of
IPC and the case would not fall under the category of Section
302 of IPC.
7. Per contra, Ms. Elker, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State submits that the perusal of the testimonies
of eye-witnesses would reveal that the prosecution has proved
the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that both
the trial court and the High Court, upon correct appreciation
of evidence, had come to a conclusion that it is the appellant-
accused who had committed the murder of the deceased and
as such, no interference is warranted in the present appeal.
8. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the
appellant and the State, we have scrutinized the material
placed on record.
5
9. The prosecution basically relies on the evidence of
Shahid Khan s/o Babu Khan (PW-1), who is brother of the
deceased, Rassu s/o Abdul Gaffar (PW-2), Asif Khan s/o Yusuf
Khan (PW-3) and Saiyad Wahid Ali s/o Saiyad Abid Ali (PW-4).
10. Insofar as Shahid Khan (PW-1) is concerned, in his
examination-in-chief, he stated that, on the date of the
incident at around 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM, when he was
drinking tea at Gop Chai Wala’s shop, accused Aslam @ Imran
and deceased Guddu started abusing each other. He stated
that, at the same time, accused Aslam @ Imran attacked
deceased Guddu with a Baka. He stated that thereafter he and
some others picked the deceased Guddu up and took him to
the hospital. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the
hand and head of deceased Guddu was on his shoulder. He
also admitted that a lot of blood was oozing out of the body of
the deceased Guddu. He further admitted that though he was
wearing a vest, there was no blood on his vest. He further
stated that deceased Guddu’s blood did not fall on the person
of Asif Khan (PW-3) who was also with them.
11. From the deposition of Shahid Khan (PW-1), it is clear
that though he states that he had witnessed the incident, he
6
did not report about the same either at the Police Station,
which was a short distance away, or at Victoria Hospital.
12. The evidence of this witness is contradictory with that of
Abbi s/o Manjoor Khan (PW-6). Abbi (PW-6) stated that when
he saw deceased Guddu in injured condition, Shahid Khan
(PW-1) was not there. Shahid Khan (PW-1) came only after
Abbi (PW-6) called him through one Mukhtar.
13. A perusal of the testimony of Shahid Khan (PW-1) when
compared with the testimony of Abbi (PW-6), clearly casts a
doubt on the truthfulness of this witness. If the deceased
Guddu was carried by Shahid Khan (PW-1) and if the hand
and head of the deceased Guddu were on his shoulder, then
the absence of bloodstains on his clothes creates a serious
doubt about the veracity of his version. Apart from that, he
has clearly admitted that though he had seen the incident, he
had not narrated about the same either to the Police Station
or at Victoria Hospital. It is to be noted that Shahid Khan (PW-
1) is the brother of deceased Guddu and as such, is an
interested witness. No doubt that merely a witness being an
interested witness cannot be a ground for discarding his
testimony. However, the evidence of such a witness is required
7
to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.
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.
14. Rassu (PW-2), in his evidence, stated that, on the date of
the incident, there was an altercation between the deceased
Guddu and the appellant-accused and after that the
appellant-accused stabbed deceased Guddu with a knife. He
stated that his cycle shop was at a distance of 25-30 feet away
from the place of the incident. In his cross-examination, he
stated that the knife which was alleged to have been recovered
from the appellant-accused, was not the same knife which was
used in committing the crime. He admitted in his cross-
examination that the Omti Police Station was at a 5-minute
walk from the scene of incident. He further admitted that a
police constable was also standing at a distance of about 50
steps from the place of the incident. However, neither did he
find it necessary to go and inform the police constable about
the incident nor did he find it necessary to go to the Police
Station which was at a distance of a 5-minute walk. He further
admitted that though there was a telephone in the Capital
8
Lodge which was just opposite his cycle shop, neither did he
find necessary to make a call to the Police Station nor did he
ask anyone to make a call to the Police Station and inform
about the incident. He further admitted that he did not know
as to how the quarrel started. He further stated that when he
saw the accused and the deceased Guddu after the abuse,
they were empty handed. He further admitted that the blood
of the deceased Guddu had stained the clothes of those who
were supporting him. Though he admitted that the house of
the deceased Guddu was at a distance of a 2–4-minute walk,
he did not find it necessary to inform about the incident to his
family members. 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 when the
telephone was available just opposite his shop and further not
informing the Police Constable who was standing at a distance
of 50 feet, would make his evidence unnatural. Though the
house of the deceased was also at a 2-4 minute walk, he did
not find it necessary to inform about the incident to his
relatives.
9
15. Asif Khan (PW-3) stated that on the date of the incident
nd
i.e., 22 August 1994 at around 12:30 PM, when he was
drinking tea at Bajid Tea Hotel, deceased Guddu told him that
he was going to leave his nephew at his parents’ place. He
stated that shortly thereafter, he turned around hearing the
sound of abuses and saw that accused-appellant was abusing
the deceased Guddu. He stated that the accused-appellant hit
deceased Guddu on his right arm with a butcher’s knife and
then on the other hand. He stated that when he was about to
reach there, accused-appellant attacked deceased Guddu’s
neck, as a result of which a lot of blood starting flowing from
the body of deceased Guddu and he fell down. Thereafter, the
accused-appellant ran away. In his cross-examination, he
stated that his statement was recorded initially within 8-12
days from the date of the incident. However, when the counsel
for the appellant during the cross-examination demanded a
copy of his statement recorded within 10-12 days, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor fairly stated that there was no
th
statement of the said witness recorded prior to 8 October
1994. It is thus clear that either his statement was recorded
th
for the first time on 8 October 1994 i.e., after 45 days of the
10
incident or if an earlier statement was recorded, the same was
suppressed. As such, an adverse inference can be drawn on
that count. Subsequently, this witness changed his version
and stated that on the date of the incident he had a scratch
th
injury on his leg and therefore he could not go till 8 October
th
1994 and only on 8 October 1994, he became fit to give a
statement to the police. He also stated that though he had
accompanied the deceased Guddu to the hospital, he did not
tell the doctor that he was killed by the appellant.
16. Next witness is Saiyad Wahid Ali (PW-4). This witness in
his examination-in-chief stated that there was a tussle
between the deceased and the accused and after that the
appellant stabbed the deceased in his neck. It will also be
relevant to refer to his cross-examination, which reads thus:
“It is true that I did not see Imran inflicting the
injuries, I am saying this based on hearsay. Among
those who took Guddu to the hospital, only Abbi was
there and no one else.”
17. It is thus clear that this witness has not personally seen
the incident and was only deposing on the basis of hearsay.
18. It is further to be noted that though Shahid Khan (PW-1)
stated that the deceased was taken to the hospital on a scooter
of Asif Khan (PW-3), Asif Khan (PW-3) stated in his evidence
11
that Shahid Khan (PW-1), Rassu (PW-2) and Wahid Ali (PW-4)
picked deceased Guddu up and took him to Dr. Khan’s
dispensary and thereafter, he was taken to Victoria Hospital.
As such, the evidence of these witnesses is again contradictory
on this point.
19. The other witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution and were declared hostile.
20. It has come in the evidence on record that the deceased
Guddu was a history-sheeter and was facing many criminal
cases including a case for attempt to murder. It has also come
in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that there was a
previous enmity between the deceased and the appellant.
21. The following factors cast a serious doubt on the veracity
of the prosecution witnesses:
(i) The witnesses who were carrying the deceased Guddu
to the hospital not having bloodstains on their clothes;
(ii) The witnesses not informing either the Police Station
or the police constable who was standing at a distance
of about 50 steps from the place of incident;
12
(iii) The contradictions in the evidence of witnesses with
regard to presence of each other at the place of
incident;
(iv) The witnesses not informing the cause of death of the
deceased Guddu in the MLC papers, though according
to them they were aware about the person who had
inflicted the injury on the deceased; and
(v) Recording of the statement of the witnesses after a
long gap after the date of incident when the said
witnesses were very much available.
22. It is a settled law that 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. 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. In our
opinion, therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.
23. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed;
th
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 26
September 2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya
13
Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1996
st
and the judgment and order dated 21 November 1995
passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No.1023 of
1994 are quashed and set aside;
(iii) The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled
against him; and
(iv) The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall
stand discharged.
24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.
..............................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
............................................J.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 27, 2025.
14