Holding

The appellate court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt, leading to his acquittal.

Summary

The appellant, Aslam alias Imran, was convicted under Section 302 IPC for allegedly stabbing his brother's brother, Zahid Khan, with a butcher knife, leading to the victim's death. The prosecution's case rested on the testimonies of several eyewitnesses, notably the victim's brother (PW-1), who was an interested witness, and others whose statements were inconsistent, contradictory, or based on hearsay. The Supreme Court found serious doubts regarding the credibility of these witnesses, noting lack of bloodstains on their clothing, failure to report the incident to police, and contradictions among their accounts. Additionally, the Court considered the victim's criminal background and prior enmity with the appellant, concluding that such motive could also indicate false implication. Applying the principle of benefit of doubt, the Court quashed the convictions and acquitted the appellant, ordering his bail to be discharged.

Issues considered

Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the inconsistencies, contradictions, and hearsay in witness testimonies warrant a benefit of doubt in favor of the appellant.
Whether the appellant can be held liable for murder despite the alleged prior enmity and the victim's criminal history.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 300, s. 302

Subjects

MurderProsecution witnessHearsayInterested witnessBenefit of doubtFalsely implicated

Judgment

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1226 : 2025 INSC 403

Aslam alias Imran
v.
The State of Madhya Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 1538 of 2025)
27 March 2025
[B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the courts
below convicting the accused-appellant u/s.302 IPC.

Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Murder – Abusive quarrel between
the appellant and the victim – Appellant attacked the victim
with a butcher knife and victim succumbed to injuries – Relying
on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the courts
below convicted the appellant u/s.302 and sentenced him to
life imprisonment – Correctness:
Held: Evidence of the informant-PW-1 contradictory with that of
PW-6 – Perusal of the testimony of PW-1 when compared with
the testimony of PW-6, clearly casts a doubt on the truthfulness of
this witness – Absence of bloodstains on his clothes the witnesses
who carried the deceased to the hospital as also witnesses did
not inform either the Police Station or the police constable who
was standing at a distance of about 50 steps from the place of
incident – PW-1 is the brother of deceased and as such an interested
witness – Testimony of PW-1 does not inspire confidence – Conduct
of PW-2 make his evidence unnatural – Adverse inference can be
drawn on the statement of PW-3 – Furthermore, PW-4 was only
deposing on the basis of hearsay, and other witnesses declared
hostile – Thus, serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution
witnesses – Also, evidence on record that the deceased was
history-sheeter and was facing many criminal cases including a
case for attempt to murder, and evidence of prosecution witnesses
that there was previous enmity between the deceased and the
appellant – Enmity is a double-edged weapon – On one hand, it
provides motive, on the other hand it also does not rule out the

* Author
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1227

Aslam alias Imran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

possibility of false implication – From the nature of the evidence
placed on record, the possibility of the appellant being falsely
implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out –
Appellant entitled to benefit of doubt – Order passed by the courts
below quashed and set aside. [Paras 13-23]

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Murder; Prosecution witness; Hearsay; Interested witness; Benefit
of doubt; Falsely implicated.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1538 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh Principal seat at Jabalpur in CRA No. 6 of 1996

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Prathvi Raj Chauhan, Venkatesh Rajput,
Nepal Singh, Varun Kumar, Meghraj Singh.
Adv. for the Respondent:
Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

B.R. Gavai, J.

1. Leave Granted.
2. The present appeal challenges the final judgment and order dated
26th September 2024, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur1 in Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 1996

1 Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court”.
1228 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

filed by the Appellant herein whereby the High Court dismissed the
Criminal Appeal and upheld the order of the III Additional Sessions
Judge, Jabalpur (M.P.)2 passed in Sessions Trial No. 1023 of 1994
thereby convicting the accused-appellant under Section 302 of Indian
Penal Code, 18603 and sentencing him to life imprisonment.
3. Shorn of details, the facts leading to the present appeal are as under:
3.1. On 22nd August 1994, at noon, the information about an attack
on the deceased Zahid Khan alias Guddu was given to Omti
Police Station and thereafter a Dehati was written by Sub-
Inspector A.K Bajpai (PW-12) at 01:30 PM.
3.2. FIR No. 461/1994 was registered at Omti P.S on the same date
narrating the attack on the deceased as per the information
shared by Shahid Khan (PW-1) - the brother of the deceased.
The prosecution case is as follows:
On 22nd August 1994, at around 12.30 PM an abusive quarrel
broke out on the road between the accused-appellant Aslam
alias Imran and the deceased at an area “Naya Mohalla”. The
accused thereafter attacked the deceased with a butcher knife
(baka) causing multiple injuries on his hands and thighs, and
a deep wound on his neck leading to the deceased bleeding
profusely. The accused fled away from the scene, and the
injured deceased was taken by Shahid Khan (PW-1) and others
to Victoria Hospital where upon seeing his critical condition, he
was shifted to the Medical College.
3.3. The deceased# succumbed to the injuries on the same day at
around 02:10 PM. The Lash Panchnama was written on the
same day by Sub–Inspector Vajpayee (PW-11) and signed by
Shahid Khan (PW-1) and others. The investigation began, blood
on the soil at the spot of crime was seized and the body was
sent for medical examination.
3.4. The accused was arrested on 25th August 1994. Based on the
disclosure made by the accused, the blood-stained butcher
knife (baka) was discovered from a container at the residence
of the accused.

2 Hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”.
3 Hereinafter referred to as “IPC”.
# Ed. Note: “deceased” instead of “accused” in terms of subsequent corrigendum.
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1229

Aslam alias Imran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

3.5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section
302 of the IPC. Since the case was exclusively triable by the
Sessions Court, it was committed to the Sessions Court.
3.6. Vide judgment and order dated 21st November 1995, the trial
court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under
Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
3.7. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the High Court upheld
the judgment and order of the trial court convicting the appellant
under Section 302 of IPC, and directed the appellant who was
out on bail to surrender before the trial court to undergo the
remaining part of his jail sentence.
3.8. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
4. We have heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.
5. Mr. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant submits that the perusal of the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses would reveal that the said witnesses are not trustworthy
and their testimonies are inconsistent to each other. As such, the
conviction on the basis of such testimonies would not be sustainable
in law.
6. In the alternative, Mr. Hegde submits that even if the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses is taken at its face value, it would clearly
reveal that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the
deceased. It is the deceased who was having a knife. As a result of
the quarrel, the appellant picked up the knife of the deceased and
assaulted him. He therefore submits that it is thus clear that the
prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant-accused had any
intention of causing death of the deceased. He submits that, in any
case, the appellant would be entitled to benefit of Exception 4 of
Section 300 of IPC and the case would not fall under the category
of Section 302 of IPC.
7. Per contra, Ms. Elker, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State submits that the perusal of the testimonies of eye-witnesses
would reveal that the prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt. It is submitted that both the trial court and the
1230 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

High Court, upon correct appreciation of evidence, had come to a
conclusion that it is the appellant-accused who had committed the
murder of the deceased and as such, no interference is warranted
in the present appeal.
8. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellant and the
State, we have scrutinized the material placed on record.
9. The prosecution basically relies on the evidence of Shahid Khan
s/o Babu Khan (PW-1), who is brother of the deceased, Rassu s/o
Abdul Gaffar (PW-2), Asif Khan s/o Yusuf Khan (PW-3) and Saiyad
Wahid Ali s/o Saiyad Abid Ali (PW-4).
10. Insofar as Shahid Khan (PW-1) is concerned, in his examination-in-
chief, he stated that, on the date of the incident at around 11:00 AM
to 12:00 PM, when he was drinking tea at Gop Chai Wala’s shop,
accused Aslam @ Imran and deceased Guddu started abusing each
other. He stated that, at the same time, accused Aslam @ Imran
attacked deceased Guddu with a Baka. He stated that thereafter
he and some others picked the deceased Guddu up and took him
to the hospital. In his cross-examination, he admitted that the hand
and head of deceased Guddu was on his shoulder. He also admitted
that a lot of blood was oozing out of the body of the deceased
Guddu. He further admitted that though he was wearing a vest,
there was no blood on his vest. He further stated that deceased
Guddu’s blood did not fall on the person of Asif Khan (PW-3) who
was also with them.
11. From the deposition of Shahid Khan (PW-1), it is clear that though
he states that he had witnessed the incident, he did not report about
the same either at the Police Station, which was a short distance
away, or at Victoria Hospital.
12. The evidence of this witness is contradictory with that of Abbi
s/o Manjoor Khan (PW-6). Abbi (PW-6) stated that when he saw
deceased Guddu in injured condition, Shahid Khan (PW-1) was not
there. Shahid Khan (PW-1) came only after Abbi (PW-6) called him
through one Mukhtar.
13. A perusal of the testimony of Shahid Khan (PW-1) when compared
with the testimony of Abbi (PW-6), clearly casts a doubt on the
truthfulness of this witness. If the deceased Guddu was carried by
Shahid Khan (PW-1) and if the hand and head of the deceased Guddu
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1231

Aslam alias Imran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

were on his shoulder, then the absence of bloodstains on his clothes
creates a serious doubt about the veracity of his version. Apart from
that, he has clearly admitted that though he had seen the incident,
he had not narrated about the same either to the Police Station or
at Victoria Hospital. It is to be noted that Shahid Khan (PW-1) is the
brother of deceased Guddu and as such, is an interested witness.
No doubt that merely a witness being an interested witness cannot
be a ground for discarding his testimony. However, the evidence of
such a witness is required to be scrutinized with greater caution and
circumspection. From the perusal of the evidence of Shahid Khan
(PW-1), we do not find that the testimony of this witness is the one
which would inspire confidence.
14. Rassu (PW-2), in his evidence, stated that, on the date of the
incident, there was an altercation between the deceased Guddu and
the appellant-accused and after that the appellant-accused stabbed
deceased Guddu with a knife. He stated that his cycle shop was
at a distance of 25-30 feet away from the place of the incident. In
his cross-examination, he stated that the knife which was alleged
to have been recovered from the appellant-accused, was not the
same knife which was used in committing the crime. He admitted in
his cross-examination that the Omti Police Station was at a 5-minute
walk from the scene of incident. He further admitted that a police
constable was also standing at a distance of about 50 steps from
the place of the incident. However, neither did he find it necessary
to go and inform the police constable about the incident nor did he
find it necessary to go to the Police Station which was at a distance
of a 5-minute walk. He further admitted that though there was a
telephone in the Capital Lodge which was just opposite his cycle
shop, neither did he find necessary to make a call to the Police
Station nor did he ask anyone to make a call to the Police Station
and inform about the incident. He further admitted that he did not
know as to how the quarrel started. He further stated that when he
saw the accused and the deceased Guddu after the abuse, they were
empty handed. He further admitted that the blood of the deceased
Guddu had stained the clothes of those who were supporting him.
Though he admitted that the house of the deceased Guddu was
at a distance of a 2–4-minute walk, he did not find it necessary to
inform about the incident to his family members. The conduct of this
witness either not finding it necessary to inform to the police about
the incident when the Police Station was only at a 4-5 minute walk
1232 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

or not even finding it necessary to inform the police on telephone
when the telephone was available just opposite his shop and further
not informing the Police Constable who was standing at a distance
of 50 feet, would make his evidence unnatural. Though the house
of the deceased was also at a 2-4 minute walk, he did not find it
necessary to inform about the incident to his relatives.
15. Asif Khan (PW-3) stated that on the date of the incident i.e.,
22nd August 1994 at around 12:30 PM, when he was drinking tea
at Bajid Tea Hotel, deceased Guddu told him that he was going
to leave his nephew at his parents’ place. He stated that shortly
thereafter, he turned around hearing the sound of abuses and saw
that accused-appellant was abusing the deceased Guddu. He stated
that the accused-appellant hit deceased Guddu on his right arm with
a butcher’s knife and then on the other hand. He stated that when
he was about to reach there, accused-appellant attacked deceased
Guddu’s neck, as a result of which a lot of blood starting flowing
from the body of deceased Guddu and he fell down. Thereafter, the
accused-appellant ran away. In his cross-examination, he stated that
his statement was recorded initially within 8-12 days from the date
of the incident. However, when the counsel for the appellant during
the cross-examination demanded a copy of his statement recorded
within 10-12 days, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly
stated that there was no statement of the said witness recorded prior
to 8th October 1994. It is thus clear that either his statement was
recorded for the first time on 8th October 1994 i.e., after 45 days of
the incident or if an earlier statement was recorded, the same was
suppressed. As such, an adverse inference can be drawn on that
count. Subsequently, this witness changed his version and stated
that on the date of the incident he had a scratch injury on his leg
and therefore he could not go till 8th October 1994 and only on
8th October 1994, he became fit to give a statement to the police. He
also stated that though he had accompanied the deceased Guddu
to the hospital, he did not tell the doctor that he was killed by the
appellant.
16. Next witness is Saiyad Wahid Ali (PW-4). This witness in his
examination-in-chief stated that there was a tussle between the
deceased and the accused and after that the appellant stabbed the
deceased in his neck. It will also be relevant to refer to his cross-
examination, which reads thus:
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 1233

Aslam alias Imran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

“It is true that I did not see Imran inflicting the injuries, I
am saying this based on hearsay. Among those who took
Guddu to the hospital, only Abbi was there and no one else.”
17. It is thus clear that this witness has not personally seen the incident
and was only deposing on the basis of hearsay.
18. It is further to be noted that though Shahid Khan (PW-1) stated that
the deceased was taken to the hospital on a scooter of Asif Khan
(PW-3), Asif Khan (PW-3) stated in his evidence that Shahid Khan
(PW-1), Rassu (PW-2) and Wahid Ali (PW-4) picked deceased Guddu
up and took him to Dr. Khan’s dispensary and thereafter, he was
taken to Victoria Hospital. As such, the evidence of these witnesses
is again contradictory on this point.
19. The other witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution
and were declared hostile.
20. It has come in the evidence on record that the deceased Guddu
was a history-sheeter and was facing many criminal cases including
a case for attempt to murder. It has also come in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses that there was a previous enmity between
the deceased and the appellant.
21. The following factors cast a serious doubt on the veracity of the
prosecution witnesses:
(i) The witnesses who were carrying the deceased Guddu to the
hospital not having bloodstains on their clothes;
(ii) The witnesses not informing either the Police Station or the
police constable who was standing at a distance of about
50 steps from the place of incident;
(iii) The contradictions in the evidence of witnesses with regard to
presence of each other at the place of incident;
(iv) The witnesses not informing the cause of death of the deceased
Guddu in the MLC papers, though according to them they
were aware about the person who had inflicted the injury on
the deceased; and
(v) Recording of the statement of the witnesses after a long gap
after the date of incident when the said witnesses were very
much available.
1234 [2025] 3 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

22. 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.
23. In the result, we pass the following order:
(i) The appeal is allowed;
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 26th September 2024
passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in
Criminal Appeal No.6 of 1996 and the judgment and order dated
21st November 1995 passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial
No.1023 of 1994 are quashed and set aside;
(iii) The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against
him; and
(iv) The appellant is already on bail. His bail bonds shall stand
discharged.
24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain