Conviction Cannot Rest on Unreliable Witnesses and Flawed Investigation: Supreme Court Acquits Three Men After 37 Years in Prison

Mere Presence at the Scene Does Not Establish Guilt—Prosecution Must Prove Beyond Reasonable Doubt - Supreme Court of India, in a landmark ruling delivered on February 28, 2025, overturned the conviction and life sentence of three men who had been found guilty of murder nearly four decades ago. The case, Abdul Wahid & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, revolved around the 1988 killing of Ahsan Ali in Kota, Rajasthan, for which the appellants had been convicted under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Court found that the prosecution’s case rested on the testimony of an unreliable and interested witness, riddled with contradictions, and unsupported by any material evidence. It observed, "A conviction for murder cannot be sustained solely on the basis of an interested and unreliable witness, particularly when the investigation is marred by glaring inconsistencies and legal infirmities. The prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt."
With this, the Court acquitted Abdul Wahid, Babu, and Abdul Shakur, who had spent years behind bars, holding that the evidence against them was unreliable and full of contradictions.

"A Murder in Kota and a 37-Year Legal Battle Marked by a Flawed Investigation"
On the night of June 25, 1988, Ahsan Ali was brutally stabbed near Ghantaghar in Kota, Rajasthan, while returning from his in-laws' house. According to the FIR lodged by Faheem Ahmed at Maqbara Police Station at 12:35 AM, a group of seven accused—Babu, Abdul Wahid, Abdul Sattar, Abdul Shakur, Aziz alias Patti, Bundu, and Latur Ali—allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and attacked Ahsan Ali with knives and a katar (sword).
The FIR claimed that Babu inflicted the first stab wound on Ahsan’s stomach, Abdul Wahid stabbed him in the chest, and Abdul Sattar slashed his back with a sword, while the other accused chased the complainant. By the time the police arrived, Ahsan Ali had succumbed to his injuries, and Section 302 IPC was added to the case.
The police filed a charge sheet against eight accused, but four of them (Abdul Sattar, Bundu, Latur Ali, and Aziz alias Patti) died during the trial, leading to the case proceeding only against the three appellants and one other accused.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Kota, convicted Abdul Wahid, Babu, and Abdul Shakur on March 10, 2003, sentencing them to life imprisonment under Sections 302 and 148 IPC. The Rajasthan High Court, in 2011, upheld their conviction but modified the charge to Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
The three appellants then approached the Supreme Court, arguing that their conviction was based on unreliable testimony and a deeply flawed investigation.

"Conviction Based Solely on an Unreliable Witness—Testimony of Sole Eyewitness Contradicted by Facts"
The Supreme Court scrutinized the testimony of Faheem Ahmed, the key prosecution witness, and found it riddled with contradictions, inconsistencies, and glaring omissions. The Court observed, "When an eyewitness is found to be a ‘stock witness’ for the police, involved in multiple criminal cases, and his testimony lacks corroboration, his evidence must be viewed with extreme caution."
The Court noted that the sole eyewitness had admitted in cross-examination that he had been used by the police in multiple cases as a false witness. His statement that Ahsan Ali was stabbed before falling from the motorcycle contradicted his own testimony, where he later claimed that Ahsan was attacked only after falling. The Court remarked, "A witness whose statements shift with convenience cannot be relied upon, especially when the prosecution presents no corroborative evidence."
The conduct of the witness was also found to be suspicious. Instead of rushing to the nearby police station, which was just 300 meters away, he claimed to have run away from the scene and only returned later. The Court held that "his conduct is wholly unnatural and does not inspire confidence."
Rejecting the prosecution's reliance on the sole witness, the Supreme Court ruled, "The conviction cannot rest on the uncorroborated statement of a witness whose conduct is unnatural, whose statements are contradictory, and whose credibility is deeply compromised."
"Investigative Lapses and Absence of Forensic Evidence Cast Serious Doubt on Prosecution’s Case"
The Supreme Court found serious lapses in the police investigation, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The Court observed, "The investigating officers failed to collect critical forensic evidence, making the entire case suspect."
The motorcycle on which the deceased was allegedly riding was never seized, despite the prosecution's claim that he fell from it after being stabbed. No bloodstains were found on the ground or the motorcycle, even though the postmortem confirmed profuse bleeding.
The alleged murder weapons were never produced in court, and their recovery was based on statements of accused persons, with all witnesses to the seizure turning hostile. No forensic tests were conducted on the accused’s clothing to check for bloodstains.
The Court, citing Narendrasinh Keshubhai Zala v. State of Gujarat, held, "When crucial evidence such as bloodstains, weapon recovery, and forensic reports are absent, the prosecution’s case collapses under its own weight."

"Mere Presence at the Scene Cannot Prove Guilt—Conviction Set Aside on Grounds of Benefit of Doubt"
Summing up its reasoning, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle that: "In cases of murder, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Where there is any reasonable doubt, the benefit must go to the accused."
The Court emphasized that "A conviction cannot be based on assumptions or probabilities. Mere presence at the crime scene does not establish guilt, especially when the prosecution's own witnesses contradict each other."
Granting benefit of doubt, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the three appellants and acquitted them of all charges. The Court directed that their bail bonds be discharged immediately, stating, "Justice delayed cannot become justice denied. An individual cannot be condemned to life imprisonment on the basis of conjecture and unreliable evidence."
The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores critical principles of criminal law, reaffirming that:
"Convictions must be based on credible and corroborated evidence, not assumptions or unreliable witnesses."
"Prosecution must conduct thorough and impartial investigations, ensuring that all material evidence is presented in court."
"Benefit of doubt must always go to the accused when serious inconsistencies exist in the prosecution’s case."
By overturning the conviction and acquitting the accused after nearly four decades, the Supreme Court highlighted the grave miscarriage of justice caused by weak investigations and reliance on unreliable witnesses. The judgment serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s duty to uphold fairness and protect individuals from wrongful convictions

Date of Decision: 28 February 2025