Supreme Court of India
ABDUL WAHID & ANR.versusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 295
- Decided
- 28 February 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- PANKAJ MITHAL
Holding
The conviction cannot be sustained as the prosecution failed to produce credible, admissible evidence linking the accused to the murder, warranting the benefit of doubt and setting aside the convictions.
Summary
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Ahsan Ali under Sections 302 and 149 of the IPC based on the testimony of a single eyewitness and alleged recovery of weapons. The Supreme Court examined the credibility of the eyewitness, the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the crime, and the suspect manner in which the weapons were recovered. It found that the prosecution failed to produce admissible evidence establishing the accused's participation, with key witnesses turning hostile and no bloodstains on the seized weapons or the accused's clothing. The Court held that the benefit of doubt must be given where the prosecution's case is unreliable. Consequently, the convictions and life sentences were set aside and the appeals were allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the prosecution evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions under Sections 302 and 149 of the IPC.
- Whether Section 27 of the Evidence Act could be invoked to admit the recovered weapons as evidence.
- Whether the benefit of doubt applies in the absence of credible, corroborative evidence linking the accused to the homicide.
- Whether the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial and High Courts should be upheld.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 313
- Evidence Act, 1872s. 27
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 307
Headnote
2101 : 2025 INSC 295 Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2012) 28 February 2025 [Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ] Issue for Consideration Whether it is for the prosecution to connect the accused to the alleged crime by producing credible and legally information that victim was lying at the place of occurrence in an injured condition – Incident was witnessed by brother-in-law of the victim and another – Allegations that due to previous enmity, the seven accused persons formed unlawful assembly whereafter they assaulted the
Subjects
WitnessHostileLife ImprisonmentIncised WoundMurderPlace of incidentInvestigation
Judgment
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2101 : 2025 INSC 295
Abdul Wahid & Anr.
v.
State of Rajasthan
(Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2012)
28 February 2025
[Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan,* JJ]
Issue for Consideration
Whether it is for the prosecution to connect the accused to the
alleged crime by producing credible and legally admissible evidence
to punish.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302/149 – Murder – Accused persons
assaulted the victim and the informant somehow managed to
escape and lodged the first information that victim was lying
at the place of occurrence in an injured condition – Incident
was witnessed by brother-in-law of the victim and another –
Allegations that due to previous enmity, the seven accused
persons formed unlawful assembly whereafter they assaulted
the victim with a murderous intent – FIR lodged and chargesheet
filed u/s.147/148/149/302 against the appellants – Trial court
convicted the appellants u/s.302/148 – High Court modified
the conviction by holding the appellants guilty of offence
punishable u/s. 302 with the aid of u/s.149 – Correctness:
Held: Though prosecution witnesses stated about the recovery
of the weapons on the basis of information given by the accused
persons, the manner in which the recoveries were made and the
circumstances surrounding the recoveries made the recoveries
highly suspect – That apart, the alleged recoveries were made
after several days of the incident and no bloodstains etc. were
found on the weapons – Doctor who had conducted the post-
mortem examination, deposed in his evidence that the seized
weapons were not shown to him – Knives were also not produced
in court – Besides, all the seizure witnesses turned hostile –
Thus, s.27 of the Evidence Act cannot come to the aid of the
* Author
2102 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
prosecution – Moreover, the clothes of the accused were not
seized and sent for forensic examination to find out whether there
were any bloodstains – Such examination would have revealed
whether there were any bloodstains on the clothes; whether those
bloodstains were of human blood; and whether those matched the
blood of the deceased – Material inconsistency in the evidence
of prosecution witnesses – No doubt that the death of victim 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 the victim – Thus, it is for the prosecution to connect
the accused to the murder of the deceased by producing credible
and legally admissible evidence – However, no credible evidence
at all to connect the accused persons with the homicidal death of
the victim – In such circumstances, the appellants entitled to the
benefit of doubt – Evidence Act, 1872. [Paras 21, 24]
Case Law Cited
Anil Phukan v. State of Assam [1993] 2 SCR 389 : (1993) 3 SCC
282; Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat [2023] 2
SCR 746 : 2023 SCC Online 284 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Evidence Act, 1872; Penal
Code, 1860.
List of Keywords
Witness; Hostile; Life Imprisonment; Incised Wound; Murder; Place
of incident; Investigation.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
722 of 2012
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2011 of the High Court
of Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCRA No. 639 of 2003
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2012
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2103
Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Ms. Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti, Snehasish Mukherjee, Ms. Anu
Gupta, Sanjay Mani Tripathi, V. Elangovan, Ali Jethmalani, Pawan
Kumar Sharma, Ms. Priya Rastogi.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Irshad Ahmad, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Milind Kumar.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
This judgment and order will dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 722
and 1266 of 2012.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2012 arises out of SLP(Crl.) No. 1764
of 2012 filed by Abdul Wahid and Babu (appellants herein). In this
appeal, challenge has been made to the judgment and order dated
26.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
at Jaipur Bench (for short ‘High Court’ hereinafter) in D.B. Criminal
Appeal No. 639 of 2003 whereby the High Court has upheld the
judgment and order dated 10.03.2003 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge No. 4, Kota (‘trial court’ for short) in
Sessions Case No. 13/1996 convicting the appellants under Sections
302/148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). However, the High
Court modified the conviction by holding the accused guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 302 with the aid of Section 149
IPC while maintaining the sentence of life imprisonment.
2.1. Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2012 has been filed by Abdul
Shakur (appellant herein) against the aforesaid judgment
and order of the High Court dated 26.08.2011 affirming the
judgment and order of the trial court and convicting the appellant
under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentencing him to undergo
imprisonment for life.
2.2. So the 3 appellants are Abdul Wahid, Babu and Abdul Shakur.
3. Since Criminal Appeal No. 722 of 2012 was argued as the lead
appeal, facts narrated therein are referred to hereunder, though both
2104 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the appeals arise out of the same incident and the same judgment
of the High Court.
4. Faeem Ahmed lodged first information before the Maqbara police
station, Kota, Rajasthan on 25.06.1988 at about 12:35 AM. He stated
therein that Ahsan Ali and himself were on way to the residence
of the in-laws of Ahsan Ali in Nayapura around 10:40 PM. While
Ahsan Ali was talking to his relatives in the shop of his brother-in-
law, he was seen by accused Abdul Sattar and Abdul Wahid. This
was noticed by Faeem Ahmed who knew them and also about the
strained relationship between Ahsan Ali on the one hand and Abdul
Sattar and Abdul Wahid on the other hand. He suggested to Ahsan
Ali that while returning home, they should change the route. However,
Ahsan Ali insisted on going through the same route by which they
had come. While returning, when they reached the place called
Ghantaghar at around 12 midnight, suddenly accused Babu, Abdul
Wahid, Abdul Sattar, Aziz @ Patti, Abdul Shakur, Bundu and Latur
Ali accosted them and attacked Ahsan Ali and himself with knives
etc. The first knife injury was inflicted by Babu on the stomach of
Ahsan Ali whereafter he fell down from the motorcycle; the second
injury was inflicted by Abdul Wahid on the chest of Ahsan Ali, also by
knife; Abdul Sattar inflicted injury by a katar (sword) on the backside
of Ahsan Ali. Abdul Shakur and Aziz @ Patti who were also trying to
inflict injuries on Ahsan Ali, chased the informant Faeem Ahmed. He
ran into the Gauri Hotel lane. When the said two accused persons
did not find Faeem Ahmed, they returned back and started assaulting
Ahsan Ali.
4.1. Informant somehow managed to escape and went to the police
station to lodge the first information. He stated that Ahsan Ali
was lying at the place of occurrence in an injured condition.
The incident was witnessed by Wahid (brother-in-law of Ahsan
Ali) and Jameel. He alleged that due to previous enmity, the
above named 7 accused persons i.e. Babu, Abdul Sattar,
Abdul Wahid, Abdul Shakur, Aziz @ Patti, Bundu and Latur
Ali alongwith Jaffar Mohammad formed an unlawful assembly
whereafter they assaulted Ahsan Ali with a murderous intent.
4.2. On the basis of the first information, FIR No. 48/1988 was
registered on 25.06.1988 under Sections 147/148/149/307
IPC. Injured Ahsan Ali was taken to the hospital for treatment
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2105
Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
but he succumbed to his injuries whereafter Section 302 IPC
was added to the FIR.
4.3. Police carried out the investigation and on completion of the
same, filed chargesheet against the 8 accused persons under
Sections 147/148/149/302 IPC. Since it was sessions triable,
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions whereafter
charges were framed against the accused persons to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.4. Prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses. On completion
of the prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(Cr.P.C.) who denied the charge and alleged false implication.
The defence also examined 3 witnesses. It may be mentioned
that trial against 4 accused persons viz. Abdul Sattar, Bundu,
Latur Ali and Aziz @ Patti abetted on account of their death.
On conclusion of the trial, trial court vide the judgment and
order dated 10.03.2003 acquitted accused Jaffar Mohammed
of all the charges. The present 3 appellants Abdul Wahid,
Babu and Abdul Shakur were convicted for the offence under
Sections 302/148 IPC and sentenced accordingly.
5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the 3 appellants
preferred appeal before the High Court. The High Court vide the
judgment and order dated 26.08.2011 (impugned judgment) affirmed
the judgment and order dated 10.03.2003 of the trial court with the
modification that the conviction was under Sections 302/149 IPC.
The sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellants was
maintained. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
6. In the first appeal, notice was issued by this Court in the related
SLP on 24.02.2012. Leave was granted on 30.04.2012 and the
2 appellants, Abdul Wahid and Babu, were granted bail. In so far
the second appeal is concerned, leave was granted on 16.08.2012
and vide order dated 07.12.2012, the appellant Abdul Shakur was
granted bail.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the courts below
were not justified in convicting the appellants on the testimony of
the sole eyewitness PW-1. After disbelieving the evidence of other
witnesses presented as eyewitnesses by the prosecution, evidence
2106 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of PW-1 has to be taken with a pinch of salt as he was a relative
and an employee of the deceased. He is an interested witness and
his testimony is not corroborated by any independent witness.
7.1. Learned counsel further submits that PW-1 is not a reliable and
trustworthy witness in as much as in his cross-examination, he
has admitted that he is a stock witness; police had produced
him as a witness in the Babar Mushtaq case to depose falsely.
Further, in his cross-examination he admitted that there are
3/4 criminal cases pending against him. Thus, he has got
criminal antecedents. It is evident that PW-1 was being used
by the police to nail the accused and, therefore, a great deal
of suspicion hovers over his testimony. As such, it would be
wholly unsafe to rely on the testimony of PW-1 to convict
the appellants without any independent corroboration. In this
connection, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court
in Anil Phukan Vs. State of Assam1.
7.2. Learned counsel for the appellant has also cast aspersions on
the FIR contending that though the same was registered on
25.06.1988 around midnight (12:30 PM), it was forwarded to the
concerned magistrate only two days thereafter on 27.06.1988.
7.3. Referring to the testimony of the investigating officer PW-17,
learned counsel submits that the said witness admitted in his
cross-examination that the motorcycle on which the deceased
was travelling alongwith PW-1 when he was allegedly attacked
by the accused persons was never seized; the blood soil
sample from the place of incident was not collected by the
investigating officer and, therefore, could not be subjected to
forensic examination. He also submits that the knives and katar
allegedly used by the appellants to assault the deceased and
recovered pursuant to confessional statements of the accused
persons were never produced in court. As a matter of fact,
all the witnesses to the alleged recovery of weapons turned
hostile stating that they had put their signature on being forced
by the police.
1 (1993) 3 SCC 282
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2107
Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
7.4. Learned counsel also submits that PW-1 in his evidence stated
that appellant No. 2 had inflicted a stab wound on the stomach of
the deceased. But in the postmortem report, no such injury was
found either on the stomach or in the abdominal region. PW-15,
the doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination,
deposed in his cross-examination that the weapons used in the
offence i.e. knives and katar were not shown to him. Further
PW-15 stated in his cross-examination that all the injuries
from injury No. 1 to injury No. 8 could well be inflicted by only
one weapon as the injuries were of the same nature. In this
connection, reliance has been placed on the decision of this
Court in Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala Vs. State of Gujarat2.
7.5. High Court had rightly rejected the evidence of PW-2, PW-3,
PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8 as their depositions did not inspire the
confidence of the court. The aforesaid witnesses displayed
unnatural conduct by not taking the deceased to the hospital
when he was in an injured condition even after the assailants
had left the place of occurrence. They did not rush to the police
station either, though it was so nearby. Such conduct raises
grave doubts about the presence of the aforesaid witnesses
at the time of the incident.
8. Per Contra, learned counsel representing the respondent State
submits that both the trial court as well as the High Court had carefully
analysed the entire evidence on record and thereafter convicted the
appellants under Sections 302/149 IPC. The impugned conviction and
sentence do not suffer from any legal infirmity to warrant interference
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
8.1. Learned counsel submits that PW-1 Faeem is an eyewitness to
the incident. It is he who had lodged the FIR where he named
the appellants as accused. FIR was lodged very promptly
without the slightest delay.
8.2. There is complete consistency between the ocular evidence of
PW-1 and the medical evidence. The ocular evidence of PW-1
clearly states that the appellants had given knife blows in the
chest and in other parts of the body which were also indicated
2 2023 SCC OnLine SC 284
2108 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in the postmortem report. Such sharp injuries caused the death
of the deceased. The ocular evidence of PW-1 could not be
shaken. He clearly pointed out the role played by the appellants
in the murder of Ahsan Ali.
8.3. PW-15, the doctor who had conducted the postmortem
examination, stated that the postmortem was conducted
promptly. 8 incised wounds were found on the person of the
deceased. The first 3 injuries were found on the abdomen, chest
and lungs of the deceased. It has come on record that the said
injuries were caused by sharp edged weapons.
8.4. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the State submits
that there is no merit in the appeals and accordingly those are
liable to be dismissed.
9. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received
the due consideration of the Court.
10. At the outset, it would be apposite to advert to the depositions of
the material prosecution witnesses.
11. PW-1 is Faeem Ahmed. In his evidence in chief, he stated that on
25.06.1988 (sic), he and Ahsan had left Bhatghat at about 10:45
PM and reached the residence of the in-laws of Ahsan at Nayapura
by motorcycle. There Ahsan talked with his brother-in-law Wahid.
Ahsan had parked his motorcycle in front of the shop of his brother-
in-law and was chatting with his friends who had come over there
to meet him. At that time, the motorcycle of Sattar came there from
the direction of the hospital. He knew the two persons who were
sitting on it. They were Sattar and Wahid who were known to him.
The two persons saw Ahsan and went away in the motorcycle. At
that stage, PW-1 told Ahsan that they should go home now by a
different route. However, Ahsan brushed aside such suggestion and
went back through the same route. When they reached Ghantaghar
at about 12:30 AM, Babu, Wahid, Sattar, Shakur, Aziz @ Patti, Bundu
and Latur confronted them. They were armed with knives and katar.
They attacked Ahsan. First blow by knife was given by Babu in the
abdomen of Ahsan; second blow by knife was inflicted on the left side
chest of Ahsan by Wahid; the third blow was given by Sattar with his
katar hitting the back of Ahsan. Aziz and Shakur chased PW-1 with
a knife. PW-1 ran into the street of Gauri Hotel. After sometime, Aziz
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2109
Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
and Shakur stopped looking for PW-1 and went back to the place
of incident where Ahsan was being assaulted.
11.1. According to PW-1, he came running to the police station and
submitted a written report. He knew all the accused persons
and identified them in court.
11.2. In his cross-examination, he stated that he was the brother-
in-law of Ahsan’s elder brother. PW-1 also stated that he
used to work as jeep driver of Ahsan. Besides, he used to
manage all the labour employed by Ahsan in his contract
works since Ahsan was a contractor. PW-1 and Ahsan had
stayed in Ahsan’s in-laws’ place for about 20-25 minutes. He
denied the suggestion that the motorcycle in which he and the
deceased were travelling had lost balance and after colliding
with a roadside pole, Ahsan fell down as a result of which
they sustained injuries.
11.3. Elaborating further, he stated that the attack on him and the
deceased started near the shops of Bisayeeti and Hindu
Band, east of Garib Nawaj Hotel. The motorcycle did not fall
over Ahsan because Ahsan was pulled down by the accused
persons. PW-1 stated that he also fell down from the motorcycle
and as he got up, he saw the accused assaulting Ahsan.
When two of the accused persons charged towards him, he
ran away. He saw Ahsan lying on the thade of Shakuntala
Chemicals shop.
11.4. PW-1 denied in his cross-examination that he had any previous
enmity with the accused persons. He went to the site of the
assault with the Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) who took the
injured Ahsan to the hospital in an auto rikshaw while asking
PW-1 to take the motorcycle to the police station.
11.5. PW-1 stated that he did not raise any alarm while the accused
persons were assaulting Ahsan because they had warned that
if anybody raised their voice, they would be killed. On further
cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he knew Ahsan since his
childhood days. He also knew the accused persons for about
8 to 10 years. The accused persons were having dispute with
Ahsan since 7 days prior to the incident. In fact, Ahsan had told
him that there could be a fight between the accused persons
2110 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and him. Therefore, when he saw Wahid on a motorcycle, he
apprehended about the possibility of assault and accordingly
had warned Ahsan. However, he admitted that neither he nor
Ahsan informed the police station about such a threat.
11.6. On further cross-examination, PW-1 stated that when the
accused persons started assaulting Ahsan, there were about
100 persons in and around the place. They were accosted all
of a sudden by the accused persons as a result of which their
motorcycle fell down. No one from amongst the crowd came
to rescue them. He defended his fleeing from the scene by
stating that if he had tried to rescue Ahsan, he could also have
been assaulted. He asserted that the first knife blow was given
by accused Babu; the second one by accused Wahid on the
chest; and the third blow by way of katar was given by Sattar.
He stated that he had seen the accused persons assaulting
Ahsan but he did not see which parts of the body of Ahsan
had suffered injuries but the three injuries he referred to were
inflicted by Babu, Wahid and Sattar immediately after Ahsan
fell down from the motorcycle. He denied the suggestion that
the public had brought Ahsan to the police station in a thela.
He stated that Ahsan was taken to the hospital in an injured
condition by the ASI. He admitted that he was presented as
a witness in a case against Aziz @ Patti where he deposed
in favour of the informant Babar Mushtaq. He denied the
suggestion that police used to present him as a false witness
in criminal cases. He admitted that there were 3/4 cases
pending against him.
11.7. PW-1 reiterated that Babu had injured Ahsan first by knife
injury which was followed by Wahid. Babu had stabbed Ahsan
in his abdomen due to which Ahsan fell on the ground from
the motorcycle.
12. PW-4 is Wahid who described himself as the brother-in-law of Ahsan.
In his evidence-in-chief, he stated that Ahsan alongwith Faeem had
come to his house in the night at about 11:00 to 11:15 PM. He talked
with his jijajee (Ahsan) whereafter he (Ahsan) went back. Thereafter,
he and his brother Jameel went to Ghantaghar by a motorcycle to
have tea and paan masala. While at Ghantaghar, they heard the
sound of an approaching motorcycle which was being driven by
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2111
Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Ahsan with Faeem sitting behind. It was about 12:00 to 12:15 hours.
All of a sudden, he heard the voice of 8 to 9 persons shouting gher
lo. He mentioned their names as Babu, Wahid, Sattar, Jaffar, Latur,
Bundu and Aziz @ Patti. He also stated that there was one more
person whom he identified in court as Shakur. According to him,
first knife blow was given on the chest of Ahsan by Babu; second
one on the chest by Wahid; Sattar gave blow of katar on the back
of Ahsan whereafter they charged towards Faeem, who ran towards
the street of Gauri Hotel. After sometime, they abandoned the chase,
came back and started assaulting Ahsan again. They shouted that
if ‘anybody comes forward, he will be killed’. PW-4 stated that it
was for this reason, he hid himself. Thereafter, he came home to
inform other relatives. From there, he came to the hospital but in
the meanwhile, Ahsan had died.
12.1. In his cross-examination, PW-4 stated that Abdul Jameel
(PW-3) was the son of his uncle. Ahsan and Faeem were at
his house for about 2 to 5 minutes whereafter they went back.
They were discussing about domestic issues. PW-4 stated
that he had gone to Ghantaghar 10 to 15 minutes after Ahsan
had departed. Though he went by a bike, he stated that the
bike was not his but that of a customer whose name he did
not remember. PW-4 stated that Makbara Police Station was
at a distance of 100-180 steps from the place of occurrence.
He did not accompany Faeem to the police station even when
the accused persons had left the place of occurrence. He
stated that Ahsan’s wife Masoom was his sister but could not
tell since how long before the incident she was staying in her
sasural. However, he stated that she was not in his house.
12.2. On further cross-examination, he stated that he had gone to
Makbara Police Station two to three days after the incident
to submit a written report to the Station House Officer of the
said police station. PW-4 stated that the first knife blow was
inflicted on Ahsan while he was still on the motorcycle. Ahsan
fell down wobbling and the motorcycle also fell down. At that
time, there was a big crowd. Though people were standing
nearby, none came near Ahsan when he fell down from the
motorcycle. Nobody tried to save him.
12.3. PW-4 further stated that he and Jameel (PW-3) remained
standing near the paan shop without raising any alarm till the
2112 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
fight with Ahsan was over. Since he was nervous, he did not
go to see Ahsan as he was lying on the road. About 100 to
150 persons were present but none came to rescue Ahsan.
12.4. PW-4 deposed that after Ahsan and Faeem left his residence,
he went to the residence of Jameel who was playing carom.
On finishing the game of carom, Jameel and PW-4 came back
to the residence of PW-4 where the motorcycle was kept.
PW-4 and Jameel rode the said motorcycle to Ghantaghar.
He admitted that when he and Jameel reached Ghantaghar,
they saw a crowd of 100 to 150 persons saying that a man
had been killed. He and Jameel did not try to take Ahsan to
the hospital.
12.5. On further cross-examination, PW-4 stated that he had not
seen any type of maarpeet. At that stage, PW-4 was declared
a hostile witness. He denied making any statement before the
police and denied seeing any incident.
13. That bring us to the deposition of PW-3 Abdul Jameel. In his
examination-in-chief, he stated that he had gone by a motorcycle
alongwith PW-4 to Ghantaghar to have tea and paan. He also narrated
the initial statement of PW-4 regarding infliction of knife and katar
injuries on the person of the deceased by Babu, Wahid and Sattar.
In cross-examination, he stated that he neither rescued Ahsan nor
went to the police station to lodge report. He also did not go to the
hospital. Later on, he was declared as a hostile witness since he
resiled from his previous statement.
14. Though a number of other witnesses including seizure witnesses
testified before the court, many of them were declared as hostile.
Otherwise also nothing tangible is discernible from their evidence.
Therefore, it is not necessary to advert to and make an analysis of
the evidence of all the witnesses. However it would be relevant to
deal with the evidence tendered by PW-15 Dr. C.M. Srivastava, the
medical officer who had conducted the post-mortem examination
on the dead body of the deceased, PW-17 Sh. Surendra Vyas, who
was the Station House Officer of the concerned police station at the
relevant time, and PW-20, Prem Prakash Tank, the investigating
officer.
15. PW-15 stated that he had conducted the post-mortem examination
on the person of the deceased on 25.06.1988 at about 09:30 AM.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2113
Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
He opined that the deceased had died within 24 hours before
commencement of the post-mortem examination. He found the
following 8 injuries on the dead body:
(i) Incised wound measuring 11/2 x 1/2 x 1/2 x transversely
right chest lower aspect;
(ii) Incised wound 1 x 1/4 x 1/8 oblique 1/2 above mid
sternum;
(iii) Stab wound left mid subclavicular size 2 x 1 x 2 x
deep cavity;
(iv) Incised wound 3 x 2 ½ x ½ left subcostal region
obliquely;
(v) Obliquely stab wound 2 x ½ x deep left mid (torn)
mammry and nipple oblique;
(vi) Stab wound 3 x 1/2 x 1/2 oblique and injury region
(torn);
(vii) Incised wound with abrasion of nasal bone; and
(viii) Incised wound 1/2 lateral to left angel of lip 1 x 1/2
(illegible) obliquely.
15.1. PW-15 stated that the cause of death was on account of
excessive bleeding. According to him, death was due to
haemorrhage shock as a result of multiple stab wounds over
the body. He proved the post-mortem examination report dated
25.06.1988 (Exhibit P-14).
15.2. In his cross-examination, PW-15 stated that he did not know
the deceased whose post-mortem he had conducted. He
also did not know the three persons who had identified the
deceased. He did not know how the deceased was brought
to the hospital and that he found the body in the mortuary. He
stated that if the weapons were shown to him, he could say
whether injury Nos. 1 to 8 were caused by those weapons or
not. Injury Nos. 1 to 8 were incised/cut wounds and were of
the same nature. Therefore, this could have been caused by
the same weapon.
15.3. In so far injury No. 1 is concerned, it was only half inch deep
but had damaged the cavity. Injury No. 2 was sternum deep
2114 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
but had not damaged any organ. Injury No. 3 was inflicted
on the shoulder and had damaged the upper part of the left
lung. No damage was caused by injury No. 4. Injury No. 5
was above the left nipple and had injured the left membrane
(left cardium). He could not say about the impact of injury
No. 6 as that part of the medical report in the file was torn.
Injury No. 7 was described as a superficial injury which could
be caused with some sharp-edged weapon if two persons
armed with sharp-edged weapons were fighting. Injury No. 8
was also described as a superficial injury. On further query,
PW-15 stated that nature of injury Nos. 1 to 3 were such that
if a person received immediate medical treatment then he
could be saved.
16. PW-17 Sh. Surendra Vyas was the Station House Officer of the police
station at the relevant point of time. He acknowledged that PW-1 had
lodged written information (Exhibit P-1) on the basis whereof FIR
No. 48/98 was registered under Sections 302/147/148/149 IPC. As
the informant stated that the injured Ahsan was lying at the site of
the incident, he had sent Ram Prasad, Assistant Sub Inspector(ASI)
alongwith a team of policemen to the place of occurrence. When he
received further information that Ahsan was lying injured, he went to
the spot himself and took the injured to the hospital while leaving a
constable to guard the crime scene. At about 01:30 AM, he received
information from the hospital that the injured Ahsan had died. He
had prepared the panchnama and had handed over the dead body
to the family after the post-mortem examination was conducted.
16.1. He stated that he had recorded the statements of witnesses
and thereafter had arrested Bundu, Latur and Abdul Gafoor.
On the basis of the information given by Bundu, he recovered
a knife vide the seizure memo (Exhibit P-28). In the same
manner, on the basis of information given by the accused
Latur, he had recovered a knife vide Exhibit P-9. Similarly, a
knife (Exhibit P-28) was recovered on the basis of information
furnished by accused Abdul Shakur. He also stated that as per
information furnished by accused Abdul Shakur before PW-20,
a team of policemen had gone to Bombay and recovered the
katar (sword) vide Exhibit P-29. Clothes of the deceased were
seized and thereafter sent for forensic examination alongwith
the seized weapons.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2115
Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
16.2. He stated that accused Abdul Sattar, Abdul Wahid, Aziz, Babu,
Raees alias Bundu, Latur and Abdul Shakur were history-
sheeters, being habitual offenders.
16.3. PW-17 stated that when he reached the MBS Hospital in the
morning at around 07:00 AM, the body of Ahsan was already
moved to the mortuary by the police. He inspected the crime
scene at around 11:00 AM on 25.06.1988 and drew up the
site map. During investigation, the arrested accused Bundu
voluntarily informed him that he had concealed the knife
behind a stone in his house. On the basis of such disclosure,
PW-17 went to the house of Bundu alongwith the said accused.
There, accused Bundu produced a fish-shaped knife which
was thereafter seized. Similarly, the arrested accused Latur
voluntarily informed PW-17 that he had concealed a knife
under one of the beds in his house. As per his disclosure,
PW-17 took the said accused to the house where he produced
a knife from under one of the beds which was thereafter
seized. Likewise, the arrested accused Abdul Shakur had
voluntarily informed PW-17 that he had kept a knife on the
slope of the house of his father-in-law Abdul Salam. As per
his disclosure, PW-17 went to the house of the father-in-law
alongwith the said accused where he produced a fish-shaped
knife from the slope of the house which was thereafter seized.
No blood stains on the handle and edge of the knife were
found. Similar statements were made relating to seizure of
other knives and the katar.
16.4. In his cross-examination, he has stated that Prem Prakash Tank
(PW-20) had interrogated accused Abdul Sattar. The recovery
of the knife at the instance of Abdul Sattar was not done in his
presence. He stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police
had ordered him and, therefore, he had gone to Bombay for
recovery of the katar. He did not take the witnesses of Bombay
while he went for recovery of the weapon. The same was
recovered from an open place where anybody could come
and go.
16.5. In so far the house of Abdul Samad is concerned, he stated
that when he had reached his house, the same was open
2116 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
though he did not find any person inside. He had entered
the house alongwith the accused and his staff. They were
accompanied by the witnesses also. The knife was kept on
the slab and did not have any blood stains. Likewise, he
stated that when he went to the house of Bundu for recovery,
the house was found open and inside family members were
present. The knife was recovered from an open space.
Anyone could come and go from that place. He did not find
any blood stains on that knife also. When he went to the
house of Latur, it was found unlocked and his family members
were present. One knife was produced after taking out the
same from under the bedding. No blood marks were visible
on this knife either.
16.6. PW-17 stated that on the night of the incident when he went to
the scene of crime, Ahsan was lying on the ground but he did
not remember as to whether the motorcycle was lying nearby.
However, he clarified that he could tell about the motorcycle
only after seeing the site map. After seeing the site map, he
stated that no motorcycle was there. He also stated that as
per the version of PW-1, both he and Ahsan were coming
on a motorcycle which was being driven by Ahsan. When he
was given knife blows, Ahsan fell down with the motorcycle
whereafter PW-1 came to lodge the report. PW-17 admitted
that he did not seize the motorcycle as he did not consider
it appropriate to seize it. On an inspection of the motorcycle,
he stated that the front wheel, petrol tank and seat of the
motorcycle were not stained with blood. He also stated that
the place of incident remains crowded till 01:30 AM in the
night. Walking distance of Makbara Police Station from the
place of incident was five minutes being 300 to 400 steps. He
denied the suggestion that when he had reached the place of
incident, a crowd of 200 to 300 people had surrounded Ahsan,
clarifying that by the time he had reached the spot, no was
seen on the spot though there were shops on both sides of
the place of the incident. When he reached the spot, Gauri
Hotel and Apsara Hotel were closed and there was pervading
silence. He also admitted in cross-examination that on the
night of the incident except the statement of the complainant,
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2117
Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
he did not record any other statement which were recorded
later on subsequent dates.
17. PW-20, the investigating officer Prem Prakash Tank, stated in his
evidence that he had arrested accused Babu, Sattar and Wahid
and recovered knives (Exhibits P-28 and P-29) on the basis of
information given by accused Babu and Wahid. According to him
also the accused persons were all history-sheeters and, therefore,
were well-known to the police.
17.1. PW-20 Prem Prakash Tank stated that accused Wahid had
voluntarily given him information under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (‘Evidence Act’ hereinafter) that he
had concealed one knife in a hotel in Alot. Similarly, accused
Babu had given PW-20 information regarding concealment of
one knife amidst household goods under the fireplace inside
the room at the lower floor of his house. Likewise, accused
Abdul Sattar informed him that he had concealed one dagger
under the stones behind the Haji Ali Baba Mazar in Bombay.
17.2. In his cross-examination, PW-20 stated that the FIR was lodged
within ten minutes of the occurrence. When he had reached
the place of occurrence, he did not see anybody present there.
17.3. PW-20 further stated that the knife which was recovered
from the house of Babu was not produced before the court.
He also admitted that except the claim of Babu that the knife
was hidden in the house belonging to him, he did not verify
about the ownership of the house. He also stated that the
place of incident was at a distance of about 200 metres from
the Makbara Police Station.
18. Let us now briefly analyse the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
as alluded to hereinabove. Coming first to the evidence of PW-1, his
conduct appears to be highly unusual. When the police station was
only 200 meters away from the place of crime, instead of rushing to
the police station to save himself and also to inform the police about
the assault on Ahsan, he goes into the lane of Gauri Hotel and hid
himself there. He did not raise any alarm either. PW-1 contradicted
himself by first saying that Ahsan was injured by the knife blows
before he fell down from the motorcycle but in the same breath,
2118 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
he goes on to say that Ahsan was stabbed after he fell down. He
also deposed that there were about 100 people in and around the
crime scene but none came to the rescue of Ahsan which is also
quite unusual. Besides being entangled in several criminal cases,
it has also come on record that he is a stock witness of the police
to depose in favour of the police in other cases including in a case
where one of the present accused persons Aziz @ Patti was an
accused. Evidence of such a witness without further corroboration
cannot form the basis to convict an accused.
19. Insofar PW-4 is concerned, his evidence is mired in inconsistencies.
He says that he and his brother Jameel came by a motorcycle to
Ghantaghar to have tea and paan masala after Ahsan and Faeem
had left. It is, therefore, not at all believable when he says that
while he and Jameel were at Ghantaghar they heard the sound
of an approaching motorcycle being driven by Ahsan with Faeem
sitting behind. If PW-4 and Jameel (PW-3) had left for Ghantaghar
after Ahsan had departed, it is inconceivable that PW-4 and Jameel
(PW-3) would reach Ghantaghar before Ahsan. Infact he stated that
after Ahsan had left, he went to the house of Jameel to pick him up,
then came back home whereafter they both came by motorcycle. In
the process they left for Ghantaghar 10 to 15 minutes after Ahsan
had left. While he identified the accused with the blows, he stated
that he hid himself out of fear though in front of his eyes his brother-
in-law was being brutally assaulted. In his cross-examination, he
stated that he went to the police station two to three days after the
incident to submit a written report. Conduct of PW-4 is surprising
to say the least. Firstly, he does not make any attempt either to
raise an alarm or to rescue his brother-in-law while he was being
assaulted. Secondly, even after the assailants had left the place, he
did not go to the police station or carry his injured brother-in-law to
the hospital. Instead, he goes home saying that he wanted to inform
the other family members. It has also come on record that his sister
Masoom was the wife of Ahsan and that she was staying in her
sasural but for how long she was staying, he could not remember.
Though he stated that he and Ahsan had discussed domestic issues,
he did not elaborate what domestic issues they discussed. In his
further cross-examination he completely contradicted himself by
saying that when he and Jameel (PW-3) had reached Ghantaghar,
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2119
Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
they saw a crowd of 100 to 150 people saying that a man (Ahsan)
had been killed.
20. Insofar the investigation is concerned, the same is marred by glaring
inadequacies striking at the root of the prosecution case. Firstly, from
the evidence of PW-17 and PW-20, it is evident that the motorcycle
which was being driven by Ahsan when he was assaulted was not
seized. PW-17 has stated in his evidence that he did not see any
bloodstain on the front wheel, petrol tank and seat of the motorcycle.
PW-15, the doctor who had conducted the post-mortem examination
on the dead body of the deceased, deposed that Ahsan died because
of profuse bleeding. If that be so, certainly there would have been
blood stains on the said motorcycle. To make matters worse,
PW-17 in his cross-examination stated after looking at the site map
that there was no motorcycle at the place where Ahsan was lying
injured. Besides, the investigating officer ought to have collected
sample of blood soil and sent the same for forensic examination
which would have proved whether the said blood matched the blood
of the deceased. But this was not done.
21. Though PW-17 and PW-20 stated about the recovery of the weapons
on the basis of information given by the accused persons, the manner
in which the recoveries were made and the circumstances surrounding
the recoveries made the recoveries highly suspect. That apart, the
alleged recoveries were made after several days of the incident and
no bloodstains etc. were found on the weapons. PW-15, the doctor
who had conducted the post-mortem examination, deposed in his
evidence that the seized weapons were not shown to him. As a matter
of fact, the knives etc. were also not produced in court. Besides, all
the seizure witnesses turned hostile. Therefore, Section 27 of the
Evidence Act cannot come to the aid of the prosecution. Moreover,
the clothes of the accused were not seized and sent for forensic
examination to find out whether there were any bloodstains. Such
examination would have revealed whether there were any bloodstains
on the clothes; whether those bloodstains were of human blood; and
whether those matched the blood of the deceased.
22. It has also come on record that while according to PW Nos.1, 3 and
4 there were about 100 to 150 people at the crime scene, when
PW-17 went to the place of occurrence immediately after lodging
2120 [2025] 2 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
of FIR, he did not find anyone there. That apart it is quite unnatural
that the policemen in the police station did not hear any noise when
such a gruesome assault had taken place only about 300 to 400
steps away from the police station. Certainly, Ahsan would have
screamed on being so brutally assaulted. In fact, it has come on
record that the accused persons had yelled warning the crowd not
to interfere. It is therefore quite inconceivable that the inmates of the
police station would not have heard the commotion from so near a
place. If there were indeed 100 to 150 people present, they would
not have remained a mute spectator to such a gruesome assault.
But this narrative of there being a crowd at the crime scene has
been proved false through the evidence of PW-17 and PW-20 who
deposed that when they reached the crime scene minutes after the
incident after lodging of FIR, they did not find anybody there and
that there was all pervading silence.
23. Another significant material inconsistency has come to light from an
analysis of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-17. According to PW-1, it
was the ASI who had taken the injured Ahsan to the hospital in an
auto rikshaw. It is very unusual that PW-1 did not accompany the
injured Ahsan to the hospital. Instead, he said that he was asked
by the ASI to take the motorcycle to the police station. This is also
not at all believable because if at all the motorcycle was required to
be taken to the police station for investigation, it would have been
taken by policemen and not by PW-1. On the other hand, PW-17 in
his evidence stated that he had sent ASI Ram Prasad alongwith a
team of policemen to the place of occurrence on receipt of the FIR.
When he received further information that Ahsan was lying injured,
he went to the spot himself and took the injured to the hospital
leaving a constable behind to guard the crime scene. Where did
PW-1 go? PW-17 did not say that PW-1 accompanied him to the
hospital; neither did PW-1 say so. Such glaring inconsistency clearly
impeached the very credibility of PW-1 and has cast a deep shadow
over the prosecution case.
24. 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
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 2121
Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
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.
25. Consequently, we allow the two appeals by setting aside the impugned
judgment of the High Court dated 26.08.2011 and of the trial court
dated 10.03.2003. Conviction and sentence of the appellants are
accordingly set aside.
26. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are discharged.
Result of the case: Appeals allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Nidhi Jain, Editor)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Witness"Sign in to search