The Supreme Court (March 27) observed that when a criminal act is committed based on prior enmity with the victim, then the possibility of false accusations cannot be ruled out. Though hostility between parties can establish a motive for a crime, it also raises the possibility of false accusations driven by personal grudges.
“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”,
Further, the Court cited other factors which cast doubt over the prosecution's case such as contradictions in witness statements and an unexplained 45-day delay in recording key witness testimonies, which weakened the prosecution's case.
“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.”
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the Appellant of all the charges leveled against him.
Case Title: ASLAM ALIAS IMRAN VERSUS THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
