Date of the Judgment: 28 February 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 295
Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Was justice delayed, justice denied? In a case dating back to 1988, the Supreme Court of India overturned the convictions of three men accused of murder, citing a lack of credible evidence. This judgment highlights the critical importance of reliable evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases with a single eyewitness. The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered the unanimous verdict, emphasizing the inadequacies in the prosecution’s case.
Case Background
The case originates from an incident on June 25, 1988, in Kota, Rajasthan. Faeem Ahmed reported to the Maqbara police station that Ahsan Ali was attacked around 12:35 AM. According to the report, Ahsan Ali and Faeem Ahmed were on their way to Ahsan Ali’s in-laws’ residence at approximately 10:40 PM when they were accosted by several individuals, including Abdul Sattar and Abdul Wahid, who were known to have a strained relationship with Ahsan Ali. Faeem Ahmed suggested changing their route home, but Ahsan Ali insisted on taking the same path.
Around midnight, near Ghantaghar, they were attacked by Babu, Abdul Wahid, Abdul Sattar, Aziz @ Patti, Abdul Shakur, Bundu, and Latur Ali, who were armed with knives and other weapons. Babu allegedly inflicted the first knife injury on Ahsan Ali’s stomach, causing him to fall off his motorcycle. Abdul Wahid then allegedly inflicted a second knife injury on Ahsan Ali’s chest, while Abdul Sattar allegedly injured Ahsan Ali’s back with a katar (sword). Abdul Shakur and Aziz @ Patti also attempted to injure Ahsan Ali and chased Faeem Ahmed, who managed to escape and report the incident to the police.
Ahsan Ali was taken to the hospital but succumbed to his injuries. The FIR No. 48/1988 was registered under Sections 147/148/149/307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), with Section 302 IPC (murder) added later.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| June 25, 1988 (10:40 PM) | Ahsan Ali and Faeem Ahmed were on their way to Ahsan Ali’s in-laws’ residence. |
| June 25, 1988 (12:35 AM) | Attack on Ahsan Ali near Ghantaghar, Kota. |
| June 25, 1988 (12:35 AM) | Faeem Ahmed lodged FIR No. 48/1988 at Maqbara police station. |
| June 25, 1988 | Ahsan Ali succumbed to his injuries in the hospital. |
| June 27, 1988 | FIR forwarded to the concerned magistrate. |
| Various Dates (during Investigation) | Arrest of accused persons: Bundu, Latur, and Abdul Gafoor. |
| March 10, 2003 | Trial court convicted Abdul Wahid, Babu, and Abdul Shakur under Sections 302/148 IPC. |
| August 26, 2011 | High Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment with modification; conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC. |
| February 24, 2012 | Notice issued by the Supreme Court in the related SLP. |
| April 30, 2012 | Leave granted by the Supreme Court; Abdul Wahid and Babu granted bail. |
| August 16, 2012 | Leave granted in the second appeal. |
| December 7, 2012 | Abdul Shakur granted bail by the Supreme Court. |
| February 28, 2025 | Supreme Court allows the appeals and sets aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants. |
Course of Proceedings
Following the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet against eight accused persons under Sections 147/148/149/302 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where charges were framed against the accused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The prosecution examined 22 witnesses, and the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), denying the charges and alleging false implication. The defense examined three witnesses. The trial against Abdul Sattar, Bundu, Latur Ali, and Aziz @ Patti abated due to their deaths. On March 10, 2003, the trial court acquitted Jaffar Mohammed but convicted Abdul Wahid, Babu, and Abdul Shakur under Sections 302/148 IPC.
Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the three appellants appealed to the High Court. On August 26, 2011, the High Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment with the modification that the conviction was under Sections 302/149 IPC. The sentence of life imprisonment was maintained, and the appeal was dismissed.
Legal Framework
Several sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) are relevant to this case:
- Section 147, IPC: Deals with rioting.
- Section 148, IPC: Deals with rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon.
- Section 149, IPC: Defines the offense of unlawful assembly and common object.
- Section 302, IPC: Defines the punishment for murder.
- Section 307, IPC: Deals with attempt to murder.
- Section 313, Cr.P.C.: Concerns the power of the Court to examine the accused.
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellants:
- ✓ The courts below erred in convicting the appellants based solely on the testimony of PW-1, the sole eyewitness, whose credibility is questionable due to his relationship with the deceased and his history as a “stock witness.”
- ✓ PW-1’s testimony is unreliable as he admitted to being a stock witness who had previously given false testimony at the behest of the police.
- ✓ There were significant delays in forwarding the FIR to the concerned magistrate, raising doubts about its authenticity.
- ✓ The investigating officer failed to seize the motorcycle on which the deceased was traveling, and blood soil samples were not collected from the crime scene.
- ✓ The weapons allegedly used in the assault were not produced in court, and witnesses to their recovery turned hostile.
- ✓ PW-1’s statement about the location of the stab wound on the deceased’s stomach contradicts the postmortem report.
- ✓ The High Court rightly rejected the evidence of other eyewitnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-8) due to their unnatural conduct.
Arguments by the Respondent State:
- ✓ The trial court and High Court carefully analyzed the evidence and rightly convicted the appellants under Sections 302/149 IPC.
- ✓ PW-1, Faeem, is a reliable eyewitness who promptly lodged the FIR, naming the appellants as accused.
- ✓ There is consistency between PW-1’s testimony and the medical evidence, which confirms that the appellants inflicted knife blows on the deceased’s chest and other body parts.
- ✓ PW-15, the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination, confirmed that the deceased had multiple incised wounds caused by sharp-edged weapons.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellants | Sub-Submissions by Respondent State |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony (PW-1) |
✓ PW-1 is a relative and employee of the deceased. ✓ PW-1 admitted to being a “stock witness” with criminal antecedents. ✓ Testimony lacks independent corroboration. |
✓ PW-1 promptly lodged the FIR, naming the appellants. ✓ Consistency between PW-1’s testimony and medical evidence. |
| FIR Discrepancies | ✓ Delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate. | ✓ FIR was lodged promptly without delay. |
| Forensic Evidence |
✓ Failure to seize the motorcycle and collect blood soil samples. ✓ Weapons not produced in court; seizure witnesses turned hostile. ✓ Contradiction between PW-1’s statement and postmortem report regarding the location of injuries. |
✓ Medical evidence confirms sharp injuries caused by weapons. |
| Reliability of Other Witnesses | ✓ High Court rightly rejected the evidence of other eyewitnesses due to their unnatural conduct. | ✓ Not applicable. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the courts below were justified in convicting the appellants on the testimony of the sole eyewitness PW-1.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | How the Court Dealt with It | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the courts below were justified in convicting the appellants on the testimony of the sole eyewitness PW-1 | The Supreme Court held that the conviction was not justified. | The Court found PW-1’s testimony to be unreliable due to inconsistencies, his status as a “stock witness,” and lack of corroboration. |
Authorities
Cases Relied Upon by the Court:
- Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282, Supreme Court of India: Relied upon by the appellant to argue that the testimony of PW-1 should be taken with a pinch of salt as he was a relative and an employee of the deceased and is an interested witness whose testimony is not corroborated by any independent witness.
- Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala Vs. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 284, Supreme Court of India: Relied upon by the appellant to argue that all the injuries could well be inflicted by only one weapon as the injuries were of the same nature.
Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:
- Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Regarding the discovery of facts based on information received from accused persons.
- Sections 147/148/149/302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Under which the accused were charged.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the appellant to question the reliability of the sole eyewitness. |
| Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala Vs. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 284 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon by the appellant to argue that all injuries could have been inflicted by a single weapon. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony (PW-1) | The Court found PW-1’s testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies, his status as a “stock witness,” and lack of corroboration. |
| FIR Discrepancies | The Court noted the delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate, raising doubts about its authenticity. |
| Forensic Evidence | The Court highlighted the failure to seize the motorcycle, collect blood soil samples, and produce weapons in court, undermining the prosecution’s case. |
| Reliability of Other Witnesses | The Court acknowledged the High Court’s rejection of other eyewitnesses’ testimonies due to their unnatural conduct. |
Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282: The Court considered this authority [CITATION] to support the argument that the testimony of a sole eyewitness who is also a relative and employee of the deceased should be viewed with caution and requires independent corroboration, which was lacking in this case.
Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala Vs. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 284: The Court considered this authority [CITATION] to support the argument that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove that multiple weapons were used, as all injuries could have been inflicted by a single weapon.
What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by several factors that cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. The unreliability of the sole eyewitness, PW-1, due to his inconsistencies and status as a “stock witness,” played a significant role. The inadequacies in the investigation, such as the failure to seize the motorcycle and collect blood soil samples, further weakened the prosecution’s case. The lack of corroborative evidence and the questionable circumstances surrounding the recovery of weapons also weighed heavily on the Court’s mind.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Unreliability of Eyewitness (PW-1) | 40% |
| Inadequacies in Investigation | 30% |
| Lack of Corroborative Evidence | 20% |
| Questionable Weapon Recoveries | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of Factual Aspects) | 60% |
| Law (Legal Considerations) | 40% |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony (PW-1) | The Court found PW-1’s testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies, his status as a “stock witness,” and lack of corroboration. |
| FIR Discrepancies | The Court noted the delay in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate, raising doubts about its authenticity. |
| Forensic Evidence | The Court highlighted the failure to seize the motorcycle, collect blood soil samples, and produce weapons in court, undermining the prosecution’s case. |
| Reliability of Other Witnesses | The Court acknowledged the High Court’s rejection of other eyewitnesses’ testimonies due to their unnatural conduct. |
Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam, (1993) 3 SCC 282: The Court considered this authority [CITATION] to support the argument that the testimony of a sole eyewitness who is also a relative and employee of the deceased should be viewed with caution and requires independent corroboration, which was lacking in this case.
Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala Vs. State of Gujarat, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 284: The Court considered this authority [CITATION] to support the argument that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove that multiple weapons were used, as all injuries could have been inflicted by a single weapon.
What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by several factors that cast doubt on the prosecution’s case. The unreliability of the sole eyewitness, PW-1, due to his inconsistencies and status as a “stock witness,” played a significant role. The inadequacies in the investigation, such as the failure to seize the motorcycle and collect blood soil samples, further weakened the prosecution’s case. The lack of corroborative evidence and the questionable circumstances surrounding the recovery of weapons also weighed heavily on the Court’s mind.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Unreliability of Eyewitness (PW-1) | 40% |
| Inadequacies in Investigation | 30% |
| Lack of Corroborative Evidence | 20% |
| Questionable Weapon Recoveries | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (Consideration of Factual Aspects) | 60% |
| Law (Legal Considerations) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
The Court’s logical reasoning can be summarized as follows:
Issue: Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony
↓
PW-1’s Testimony
Inconsistencies, “Stock Witness,” Lack of Corroboration
↓
Investigation Inadequacies
Failure to Seize Motorcycle, Collect Blood Soil
↓
Lack of Credible Evidence
No Reliable Link Between Accused and Homicidal Death
↓
Benefit of Doubt
Key Takeaways
- ✓ The judgment underscores the importance of credible and reliable evidence in criminal trials, especially when relying on a single eyewitness.
- ✓ It highlights the need for thorough and unbiased investigations, including the proper collection and preservation of forensic evidence.
- ✓ The decision serves as a reminder that the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused when there is a lack of credible evidence linking them to the crime.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of an unreliable eyewitness, especially when the investigation is marred by significant inadequacies and there is a lack of corroborative evidence. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the burden of proof in criminal cases and the importance of a fair and impartial investigation.
Conclusion
In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of three men in a 1988 murder case, citing a lack of credible evidence. The Court emphasized the unreliability of the sole eyewitness, inadequacies in the investigation, and the absence of corroborative evidence, ultimately granting the appellants the benefit of doubt. This decision underscores the critical importance of reliable evidence and thorough investigations in ensuring justice.