A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Aslam alias Imran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Crim. App. No. 1538 of 2025 ([2025] 3 S.C.R. 1226 : 2025 INSC 403) examines whether the prosecution proved murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt where the case largely rested on the testimonies of lay witnesses who were internally inconsistent, delayed in furnishing statements, partially hearsay, and affected by prior enmity with the accused.

The trial court convicted and the High Court affirmed. On appeal the Supreme Court scrutinized witness credibility focusing on contradictions between PW-1 (brother of the deceased) and other witnesses, absence of expected bloodstains on carriers, failure to inform nearby police or use an available telephone, delayed recording of statements, suppression or non-production of earlier statements, and that several witnesses were hostile or deposed on hearsay.

The Court held that these cumulative infirmities generated serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case. The Court further observed that though prior enmity supplies motive, it equally raises the possibility of false implication. In consequence the conviction under Section 302 IPC was quashed, the appellant acquitted and bail bonds discharged.

Keywords: Murder; Benefit of doubt; Interested witness; Hearsay; Prior enmity.

B) CASE DETAILS 

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The appeal arises from a fatal stabbing on 22 August 1994 in Naya Mohalla where the deceased Zahid Khan alias Guddu succumbed to neck injuries. A Dehati and FIR were registered the same day based on information reportedly given by Shahid Khan (PW-1), brother of the deceased. The accused was arrested on 25 August 1994 and a blood-stained butcher knife (baka) was recovered per an alleged disclosure. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed the appeal.

Before the Supreme Court the central challenge focused on the reliability of ocular and supporting testimony and whether the prosecution proved mens rea for murder or, alternatively, whether Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (grave and sudden provocation / fight over sudden quarrel where the assailant takes the weapon from deceased) could apply.

The Supreme Court undertook a meticulous appraisal of witness depositions, timing and content of medical and police papers, conduct of witnesses (including omissions to inform police despite proximity and access to telephone), delayed statements to police, presence of hearsay testimony, and the antecedent criminal background of the deceased.

The Bench balanced the twin themes of motive arising from prior enmity against the equal risk of fabrication or false implication that enmity brings. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the cumulative contradictions, delays and lacunae rendered the case unsafe for conviction for murder.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 22.08.1994 an abusive quarrel occurred between Aslam (accused) and Guddu (deceased) around noon. Prosecution account: accused attacked deceased with a butcher knife, inflicting multiple wounds to hands, thighs and a deep neck wound; the deceased bled profusely and was conveyed first to a dispensary, then to Victoria Hospital and later to the Medical College where he died at about 02:10 PM the same day.

A Lash Panchnama was prepared and blood from soil seized. The accused was arrested three days later. Investigation: based on a disclosure, a blood-stained baka was recovered from the accused’s residence. Key prosecution witnesses: PW-1 (Shahid Khan) brother and informant; PW-2 (Rassu) nearby shopkeeper; PW-3 (Asif Khan) who allegedly provided scooter and saw the assault; PW-4 (Saiyad Wahid Ali) who later admitted to speaking on hearsay; PW-6 (Abbi) whose testimony contradicted PW-1 on timing and presence. Several other witnesses either turned hostile or failed to support the prosecution.

Material inconsistencies: absence of bloodstains on clothes of those who carried the deceased despite admission of heavy bleeding; failure of witnesses to inform a police constable standing within 50 steps or to use an available telephone opposite a shop; contradictions over who accompanied or carried the deceased; delayed or missing earlier statements (notably PW-3’s first statement only recorded on 8 October 1994 or else earlier statements suppressed).

The deceased’s antecedent record as a history-sheeter and prior enmity with accused featured in evidence. These facts framed the Court’s assessment of credibility and the ultimate acquittal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed murder punishable under Section 302 IPC?
ii. Whether contradictions, delays and hearsay in the testimony of key witnesses render the prosecution case unreliable?
iii. Whether the appellant could claim protection under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden quarrel / self-defence taking weapon from deceased) as a mitigating principle?
iv. Whether prior enmity between parties militates for conviction (motive) or equally raises a presumption of false implication?
v. Whether the lapses in investigation and recording of statements justify acquittal on benefit of doubt?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that witness testimonies are internally inconsistent and do not inspire confidence.
ii. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the sequence of events — quarrel, deceased holding knife, accused picking it up and using it — if true, points towards lack of intention to cause death and attracts Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
iii. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that delayed recording and possible suppression of earlier statements (notably PW-3) and contradictions (PW-1 vs PW-6) create reasonable doubt.
iv. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that absence of corroborative forensic detail on witness clothing, non-communication to nearby police and availability of telephone are suggestive of manufactured narrative.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that ocular testimony of multiple eyewitnesses proves the appellant inflicted fatal injuries.
ii. The counsels for Respondent submitted that both trial and High Court rightly appreciated evidence and found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
iii. The counsels for Respondent submitted that recovery of blood-stained knife pursuant to disclosure links the accused to weapon and supports conviction.
iv. The counsels for Respondent submitted that discrepancies in peripheral details do not vitiate core ocular account of assault and death.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Punishment for murder.
ii. Section 300, Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Definitions of murder and its exceptions (Exception 4 argued).
iii. Principles of evidence: credibility, corroboration, hostile witness doctrine, adverse inference on suppression/delay.
iv. Forensic / Procedural norms: MLC and Lash Panchnama as investigative documents relied upon for sequence and medical cause of death.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Bench undertook a granular credibility analysis. It observed that PW-1 (brother/informant) claimed to have seen the assault and to have carried the deceased with the deceased’s head and hand on his shoulder, yet his vest had no bloodstains. The Court treated that omission as material because heavy bleeding from a neck wound would normally stain a carrier.

Further, PW-1 did not report the eyewitness account at the nearby police station or at Victoria Hospital contrary to expected conduct. PW-6 (Abbi) contradicted PW-1’s presence and timing, saying PW-1 arrived later after being summoned. PW-2 admitted that a police constable stood 50 steps away and a telephone was opposite his shop yet he did not inform either; his conduct was characterized as unnatural and diminishing reliability.

PW-3’s statement presented a recording anomaly: either the first statement was recorded only on 8 October 1994 (45 days after incident) or an earlier statement had been suppressed an adverse inference was drawn. PW-4 conceded in cross-examination that his testimony was based on hearsay. Several other witnesses turned hostile. The Court also noted recovery of a blood-stained knife from accused’s house on an alleged disclosure but did not treat recovery alone as sufficient to offset testimonial infirmities.

Crucially, the Court highlighted that the deceased was a history-sheeter and a prior enmity existed between parties; the doctrine that enmity is double-edged was invoked while it provides motive it also opens up a real risk of fabrication. Considering contradictions, omissions to inform police, delayed statements, hearsay testimony and hostile witnesses, the Court concluded that the prosecution case suffered serious doubt. On these cumulative grounds the conviction under Section 302 IPC was quashed and the accused acquitted. The bail bonds were discharged.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio rests on the principle that criminal convictions require proof beyond reasonable doubt and that testimonial weaknesses such as material contradictions, unexplained delays in recording statements, witnesses whose evidence is hearsay, and conduct incompatible with ordinary human behavior can collectively erode the prosecution’s case to the extent that benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.

The Court applied the rule that an interested witness (here PW-1) must be scrutinized with greater caution. Recovery of weapon alone could not compensate for pervasive defects in ocular testimony. Where enmity exists, the possibility of false implication is real and cannot be ignored. These propositions formed the binding rational basis for acquittal.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Bench reiterated established evidentiary maxims: enmity is a double-edged sword; presence of motive does not automatically translate into guilt; delayed or suppressed statements attract adverse inference.

The Court also observed that conduct of witnesses (failure to notify nearby police or use an available telephone) may be considered in assessing veracity. While not overruling any precedent, the Court underscored cautious approach in reliance on uncorroborated and inconsistent lay testimony in fatal crime prosecutions.

c. GUIDELINES 

i. Trial and appellate courts must appraise witness conduct and surrounding circumstances, not merely accept superficial consistencies.
ii. Testimony of interested witnesses requires closer scrutiny and corroboration.
iii. Delayed statements must be explained; unexplained delay or suppression may lead to adverse inference.
iv. Hearsay evidence should not be elevated to the level of primary ocular proof in murder trials.
v. Recovery of material objects must be tested against chain of custody and corroborative witness reliability.
vi. Where prior enmity exists, courts should weigh both motive and risk of fabrication before convicting.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment exemplifies disciplined evidentiary reasoning. It does not substitute appellate discretion for trial findings but carefully interrogates the totality of evidence. The Court’s approach is salutary: it balances the State’s duty to punish murder with the foundational right of the accused to be convicted only on sound and credible proof.

Emphasizing ordinary human behavior (bloodstains on carriers, informing nearby police, using available telephone) as a touchstone for assessing witness truthfulness is pragmatic and grounded. The decision also reinforces that enmity must alert courts to the dual possibilities of motive and malicious fabrication.

Practically, the ruling sends a remedial signal to investigating agencies to promptly record statements, preserve earlier statements, and ensure forensic corroboration to buttress ocular evidence in homicide prosecutions.

For practitioners, the case reiterates classic evidence law lessons: scrutinize interested witnesses, explain delays, and avoid reliance on hearsay as the backbone of capital or life sentence prosecutions.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i. Aslam alias Imran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, [2025] 3 S.C.R. 1226 : 2025 INSC 403.

b. Important Statutes Referred
i. Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 300; Section 302.