27 March 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

In a significant judgment delivered nearly three decades after the incident, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted an individual, Aslam alias Imran, who was convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The apex court overturned the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, citing serious doubts about the veracity and consistency of the prosecution's key witnesses.

The case dates back to August 22, 1994, when Zahid Khan alias Guddu was fatally attacked with a butcher knife in Jabalpur. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimonies of four alleged eyewitnesses: Shahid Khan (the deceased's brother), Rassu, Asif Khan, and Saiyad Wahid Ali.

According to the prosecution, a verbal altercation escalated into a physical assault where the accused, Aslam, inflicted multiple injuries on Zahid Khan, including a fatal wound to the neck. Aslam was arrested a few days later, and a blood-stained butcher knife was reportedly recovered based on his disclosure.

The trial court, in its judgment dated November 21, 1995, convicted Aslam of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. This conviction was subsequently upheld by the High Court in its order dated September 26, 2024, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde argued that the prosecution witnesses were unreliable, their testimonies riddled with inconsistencies. He contended that a conviction based on such shaky evidence could not be sustained.

Alternatively, Mr. Hegde submitted that even if the prosecution's version was accepted at face value, it indicated a sudden quarrel where the deceased was initially armed with a knife, which the appellant then used in the heat of the moment. He argued that this scenario would, at best, fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and not Section 302 (murder).

The State, represented by Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, countered that the eyewitness accounts, when properly appreciated, proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that both the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence.

However, after a thorough scrutiny of the material on record, the Supreme Court bench expressed serious reservations about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. The court highlighted several critical inconsistencies and unnatural conduct:

• Lack of Bloodstains: Shahid Khan (PW-1), the deceased's brother, claimed to have carried the profusely bleeding victim to the hospital with the deceased's head and hand on his shoulder. However, he admitted to having no bloodstains on his vest, raising doubts about his presence or the manner in which he assisted the deceased.
• Contradictory Accounts: The testimony of Shahid Khan was contradicted by another witness, Abbi (PW-6), who stated that Shahid Khan was not present when he first saw the injured deceased and arrived later after being called.
• Unnatural Behavior of Witnesses: Rassu (PW-2), whose cycle shop was near the crime scene, admitted that the police station was a mere 5-minute walk away and a police constable was stationed nearby. Yet, he did not inform either about the incident. He also failed to inform the deceased's family, whose house was close by, about the attack. The court found this conduct highly improbable.
• Delayed Statement and Suppression: Asif Khan (PW-3) initially claimed his statement was recorded within 8-12 days of the incident. However, the prosecution later conceded that no such statement existed before 45 days. This significant delay and potential suppression of an earlier statement cast a shadow on the witness's reliability. His subsequent explanation for the delay was deemed unconvincing.
• Hearsay Evidence: Saiyad Wahid Ali (PW-4) explicitly admitted in his cross-examination that he did not witness the incident and was testifying based on hearsay.
• Inconsistent Sequence of Events: The witnesses provided conflicting accounts of how the deceased was taken to the hospital, further highlighting the discrepancies in their testimonies.
• Non-Disclosure to Medical Professionals: Despite claiming to be aware of the assailant, the witnesses who accompanied the deceased to the hospital apparently did not inform the doctors about the identity of the attacker, which the court found unusual.
• Previous Enmity and History of Deceased: The court also noted that the deceased had a criminal history, and there was admitted previous enmity between him and the appellant, raising the possibility of false implication.

The Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal principle that while previous enmity can provide a motive for a crime, it also opens the door to the possibility of false implication. Considering the significant doubts surrounding the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the inconsistencies in their accounts, the court concluded that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court. The appellant, who was already out on bail, was acquitted of all charges, and his bail bonds were discharged, bringing an end to a legal battle that spanned three decades.

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860