-
by Admin
27 May 2026 10:33 AM
“Previous Enmity is a Double-Edged Sword — It May Provide Motive or Lead to False Implication”, In a detailed and critical judgment that underscores the caution courts must exercise when convicting solely on the basis of interested or tainted witnesses, the Bombay High Court set aside the conviction and life sentences of five accused in a 2017 murder case, citing serious doubts in the prosecution's case and untrustworthy conduct by the purported injured eye-witnesses.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Manjusha Deshpande held:
“In the present case, the two injured eye-witnesses fall into the category of ‘neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable’… and the trial court grossly erred in convicting the appellants without corroboration. Their version stands irreparably tainted by unnatural conduct, contradictions, previous enmity, and total absence of corroborative evidence.”
“Delayed FIR, Discredited Witness, No Recovery, and Tainted Panchas — A Murder Case Built on Suspicion, Not Proof”
The Court meticulously dissected the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case which had led the Sessions Court to convict five out of eight accused for the brutal murder of one Nikhil More on 17th August 2017. The appellants had been sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, and 324 IPC.
However, the High Court found the entire case rested solely on the testimonies of two purported injured eye-witnesses, Suraj Khode (P.W.4) and Amol Nikam (P.W.5) — both of whom had previous criminal enmity with the accused. Shockingly, the trial court itself had disbelieved the third eye-witness, Sachin Kadam (P.W.6), calling into question the entire narrative.
The Bench noted with concern:
“When the third eye-witness (P.W.6) is completely disbelieved, and his very presence is doubted, yet the other two witnesses affirm his presence at the scene — it renders the entire testimony suspect. Their account does not stand the test of either credibility or corroboration.”
“Conduct Unnatural, Version Contradictory”: Injured Witnesses Said Nothing for Hours Despite Police Presence
One of the most damning aspects noted by the Court was the silence of the injured witnesses for nearly 6.5 hours after the incident. The Court highlighted that:
“Though both witnesses were declared medically fit to give statements by 11:50 p.m., their statements were recorded only at 4:30 a.m., during which they did not name the assailants to doctors, police, or anyone else — despite claiming to know them well.”
This delay, the Court held, “was used to falsely implicate the appellants”, especially considering the background of previous FIRs, rivalries, and cross-cases involving both sides. The Court drew support from Muluwa v. State of M.P. (1976) and Khema @ Khem Chandra v. State of U.P. (2023), stating:
“Such silence is not natural. It gives rise to the possibility that the accused were named later, after deliberation — and not because they were actual assailants.”
No Recovery of Weapons, Ballistics Negative, and Panch Witnesses Were Friends of the Deceased
The High Court found several procedural lapses and evidentiary gaps that undermined the prosecution:
The recovery of weapons was disbelieved by the trial court itself.
The ballistic report was negative, even though a firearm injury was cited.
No independent witnesses were examined, and most panch witnesses were friends of the deceased.
CCTV footage was not seized, despite availability at the nearby hospital.
Witnesses like Gorakh Nathe and Saurabh Junagade, who allegedly transported the deceased to hospital, were never examined.
“These gaps are not minor lapses; they go to the very root of the credibility of the prosecution case,” the Bench ruled.
“Interested Witnesses Without Corroboration Cannot Be Sole Basis of Conviction”
The Court referred to the established legal test in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras (AIR 1957 SC 614), categorizing witnesses into three classes — wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable — and held that P.W.4 and P.W.5 belonged to the third category.
“The Supreme Court has consistently held that such witnesses must be corroborated in material particulars. That corroboration is missing here.”
Furthermore, both witnesses had been involved in earlier violent crimes, including one against a relative of the accused. Their failure to inform doctors or police of the assailants for hours, despite being with them throughout, was considered unnatural and suspicious.
False Implication Cannot Be Ruled Out in Cases with Personal Enmity and Unexplained Delays
Citing Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana (2023), the High Court stressed the importance of evidence of "sterling quality" where sole reliance is placed on interested or injured witnesses.
“The testimonies of P.W.4 and P.W.5 fall far short of that threshold. Their personal involvement in earlier offences against the accused and their silence raise strong suspicion of false implication.”
Conviction Set Aside, All Five Accused Acquitted
Finding that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Bombay High Court reversed the convictions and acquitted all appellants:
“While the occurrence of the incident is not in dispute, the evidence falls short of proving that these accused were responsible. The benefit of doubt must be given.”
Accordingly, the judgment dated 10.11.2020 of the Sessions Court at Nashik was set aside, and all appellants were ordered to be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. They were also directed to execute personal bonds under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, ensuring their appearance if an appeal is filed against this acquittal.
Date of Decision: December 1, 2025
