Summary
The appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC for a 1994 knife attack, upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, was set aside. The Supreme Court found that the four witnesses relied on by the prosecution were either hearsay, interested, contradicted by each other, or had behaved unnaturally (no bloodstains despite carrying the injured, no report to a police station a five-minute walk away, statements recorded 45 days later), and that previous enmity left open the possibility of false implication; the appellant was given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
Issues
- Whether the testimony of the prosecution eyewitnesses (PW-1 to PW-4) was trustworthy and consistent enough to sustain a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the delay in recording a witness's statement, and the absence of bloodstains on witnesses who claimed to have carried the profusely bleeding deceased, cast doubt on their presence at the scene.
- Whether previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased supported the prosecution's motive or raised a possibility of false implication.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant had been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court, affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court did not reach the alternative argument that the case fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 (sudden fight), because it found the eyewitness evidence itself unreliable and acquitted the appellant on the benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 2, 3.6, 6, 21, 22, 23)
Held
- The brother of the deceased (PW-1), who claimed to have carried the injured with the deceased's head and hand on his shoulder, had no blood on his vest, did not report the incident at the nearby police station or the hospital, and was contradicted by PW-6, who said PW-1 arrived only after being called. The evidence of an interested witness is not to be discarded merely for that reason, but must be scrutinised with greater caution; so scrutinised, PW-1's testimony did not inspire confidence. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13)
- PW-2, whose cycle shop was 25-30 feet from the spot, neither informed the police station five minutes away, nor a constable standing 50 steps away, nor used the telephone opposite his shop, nor told the deceased's family who lived two to four minutes away; he also said the knife recovered was not the one used and that the parties were empty-handed after the abuse. Such conduct rendered his evidence unnatural. (¶ 14)
- PW-3's statement was either recorded for the first time 45 days after the incident or an earlier statement was suppressed, since the prosecutor conceded no statement existed before 8 October 1994; an adverse inference can be drawn on that count. He also did not tell the doctor who had attacked the deceased despite accompanying him to hospital. (¶ 15)
- PW-4 admitted in cross-examination that he did not see the appellant inflict the injuries and was deposing on hearsay; his evidence was of no value as eyewitness testimony. The witnesses also contradicted each other on how the deceased was taken to hospital. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18)
- Enmity is a double-edged weapon: it supplies a motive but equally does not rule out false implication. Given the deceased was a history-sheeter, the previous enmity with the appellant, and the cumulative doubts (no bloodstains on those carrying the deceased, failure to inform the police close by, contradictions on each other's presence, failure to name the assailant in the MLC papers, and delayed recording of statements), the possibility of false implication could not be ruled out and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's judgment dated 26 September 2024 and the trial court's judgment dated 21 November 1995 are quashed and set aside; the appellant is acquitted of all charges and, being on bail, his bail bonds stand discharged. Pending applications disposed of.