Testimony of interested witnesses requires strict scrutiny where prior enmity and poor visibility cast reasonable doubt.

The case involves an appeal against a judgment dated 19.12.1989, where the Appellant, Tej Bir, was convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Rahman

The prosecution alleged that due to a land dispute and prior animosity, on 17.08.1987 at approximately 09:00 PM, the Appellant and three others (whose appeals abated) intercepted the deceased, PW-2 (Akram), and PW-3 (Allah Rakha) near Gurukul-Mohammadpur

It was alleged that Tej Bir fired at the deceased with a country-made pistol upon the exhortation of his co-accused

The deceased succumbed to injuries at Muzaffarnagar Hospital

While PW-2 turned hostile, the Trial Court relied on the testimony of PW-3 (the deceased’s uncle) to convict the Appellant

1. Whether the testimony of a hostile witness can be partially relied upon if it corroborates the prosecution's case.

2. Whether the testimony of a sole, related, and interested witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction when previous enmity exists between the parties.

3. Whether the prosecution established the identity of the assailant beyond reasonable doubt, considering the incident occurred in a dark night with identification allegedly made via torchlight.

The Court applied Section 302 of the IPC regarding punishment for murder.

It relied on the principle that the evidence of a hostile witness is not effaced from the record but must be subjected to close scrutiny, as held in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Bhajju v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

Regarding related and interested witnesses, the Court applied the rule of "discerning scrutiny" from Masalti v. State of U.P. and Raju v. State of Tamil Nadu, stating that such testimony must be meticulously examined, especially where enmity—a "double-edged weapon"—exists.

The Court found the prosecution's case primarily rested on the testimony of PW-3, as PW-2 (the real brother-in-law of the deceased) turned hostile, stating he could not identify the assailants in the dark.

Upon scrutinizing PW-3’s testimony, the Court observed that the night was so dark that witnesses required torches just to see the pathway, making the clear identification of four armed individuals and their specific actions improbable.

Furthermore, the Court noted the unnatural conduct of the witnesses; instead of immediately transporting the injured to a hospital, they waited at the spot for PW-1 to arrive and write the FIR.

The Court highlighted discrepancies regarding when the Investigating Officer inspected the torch.

Given the admitted prior enmity, the Court determined that the risk of false implication was high and the evidence of the sole related witness did not inspire enough confidence to sustain a conviction.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and life sentence of Appellant Tej Bir. The Appellant was acquitted, his bail bonds were cancelled, and his sureties discharged.