Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Convictions Citing Unsafe Eyewitness Testimony and Flawed Investigation

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Pankaj Mithal heard appeals that challenged the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment dated 26 August 2011, which had affirmed convictions in a homicidal incident at Kota and sustained life sentences under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The appeals arose from trial court convictions in Sessions Case No. 13/1996 following the death of Ahsan Ali on 25 June 1988.

The Court allowed the appeals, held that the prosecution had failed to connect the accused to the homicidal death by credible and legally admissible evidence, and set aside the convictions and sentences. The Bench found serious infirmities in ocular testimony and in the investigation: the principal eyewitness was a relative and a “stock witness” whose evidence suffered from contradictions and was not independently corroborated; multiple seizure and recovery witnesses turned hostile; alleged recoveries were made under Section 27 Evidence Act but weapons were not produced and bore no blood stains; and crucial material such as the motorcycle and blood-soil samples were not seized or forensically tested. The Court observed that the investigation was “marred by glaring inadequacies striking at the root of the prosecution case” and concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “There is no doubt that the death of Ahsan is homicidal. Medical evidence has also confirmed multiple stab injuries on his body leading to profuse bleeding and death. According to the prosecution, it is the accused who had committed murder of Ahsan. Therefore, it is for the prosecution to connect the accused to the murder of the deceased by producing credible and legally admissible evidence. However, as we have seen, there is no credible evidence at all to connect the accused persons with the homicidal death of Ahsan. In such circumstances, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.” The Court also noted that “evidence of such a witness without further corroboration cannot form the basis to convict an accused.”

Background

The dispute arose after Faeem Ahmed (PW‑1) lodged an FIR on 25 June 1988 reporting that he and Ahsan Ali were attacked near Ghantaghar, Kota, by a group including Abdul Wahid, Babu, Abdul Shakur and others. Ahsan was taken to hospital but succumbed to multiple stab and incised wounds; post‑mortem recorded eight injuries and death from haemorrhagic shock. The police charged eight accused under Sections 147/148/149/302 IPC; four accused later died, one was acquitted, and three appellants were convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 302/148 and sentenced to life. The High Court upheld conviction but read the offence as Section 302 with the aid of Section 149.

On appeal, counsel for the appellants urged that conviction rested on the unsupported testimony of PW‑1, who was a relative and employee of the deceased, had admitted being used as a witness in other cases, and had several criminal cases pending against him. Defence counsel highlighted inconsistencies in PW‑1’s account, hostile seizure witnesses, non‑production of weapons, absence of blood stains on alleged weapons, failure to seize the motorcycle allegedly carrying the deceased, omission to collect blood‑soil samples for forensic testing and delays in forwarding the FIR to the magistrate. The State relied on ocular evidence of PW‑1, the post‑mortem findings (PW‑15) and recoveries made during investigation (PW‑17, PW‑20).

The Court examined witness depositions and investigative records, found material contradictions in eyewitness accounts (notably PW‑1, PW‑3 and PW‑4), and serious lapses in investigation and seizure procedure. The Court treated Section 27 recoveries and subsequent non‑production and hostile seizure witnesses as unreliable. The Court noted that while death was homicidal, the prosecution had failed to prove the link between accused and offence beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, the trial and High Court judgments were set aside, convictions and sentences were quashed, and bail bonds of appellants were discharged.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 295; Criminal Appeal Nos. 722 & 1266 of 2012 Case Title: Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan; Abdul Shakur v. State of Rajasthan Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Advocates not recorded in judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Advocates not recorded in judgment]