Acquittal Granted Where Witnesses Were Doubtful and Enmity Suggested Possibility of False Implication

A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal by Aslam alias Imran challenging his conviction under Section 302 IPC by the trial court and the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. The appeal arose from the High Court's dismissal of Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1996 and the trial court's conviction and life sentence in Sessions Trial No. 1023 of 1994 for the murder of Zahid Khan alias Guddu.

The Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court, acquitting the appellant of all charges. The bench recorded that the prosecution case rested on eyewitness testimony that suffered from material contradictions, delays and conduct inconsistent with having witnessed a violent crime. The bench noted significant infirmities in the testimonies and observed that the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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." The judgment further found that the testimony of the principal witness "would not inspire confidence."

Background The incident dated 22 August 1994 involved an altercation in Naya Mohalla between the appellant and the deceased Zahid (Guddu). The prosecution alleged that the appellant attacked the deceased with a butcher’s knife, causing multiple injuries including a fatal neck wound. FIR No. 461/1994 was registered the same day and the appellant was arrested on 25 August 1994; a blood-stained butcher knife was recovered following a disclosure. The trial court convicted the appellant for murder on 21 November 1995 and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court on 26 September 2024 dismissed the appellant’s criminal appeal, directing him to surrender to serve the sentence.

On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinised evidence from key prosecution witnesses — Shahid Khan (brother of the deceased), Rassu, Asif Khan and Saiyad Wahid Ali — and recorded multiple inconsistencies: witnesses who claimed to have carried the bleeding deceased had no bloodstains on their clothes; witnesses failed to inform a nearby police constable or the police station despite proximity and available telephones; key witnesses gave varying accounts about their presence at the scene; one witness admitted he "did not see Imran inflicting the injuries" and spoke on hearsay; and one material witness’ statement appeared to have been recorded only after a long delay. The Court observed that several other prosecution witnesses either did not support the case or were declared hostile. The bench noted prior enmity between the parties and held that, given the doubts and contradictions, the possibility of false implication could not be excluded.

In consequence, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned judgments, acquitted the appellant and discharged his bail bonds. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 403 Case Title: Aslam alias Imran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Senior Counsel For the Respondent(s): Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Counsel for the State