Supreme Court Acquits Three Accused in 1988 Kota Murder Case, Citing Lack of Credible Evidence

Background of the Case

The case stemmed from the murder of Ahsan Ali, who was fatally stabbed on the night of June 25, 1988. The prosecution alleged that Ahsan Ali and his acquaintance, Faeem Ahmed, were returning home when they were ambushed by a group of men, including the three appellants. According to the first information report (FIR) lodged by Faeem Ahmed at the Makbara police station, the attackers—armed with knives and a katar (sword)—brutally assaulted Ahsan, leaving him fatally injured. He was taken to the hospital but succumbed to his wounds.

Following an investigation, eight individuals were charged under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including 302 (murder), 147 (rioting), 148 (armed rioting), and 149 (unlawful assembly). The trial court convicted three of them in 2003, a decision later upheld by the Rajasthan High Court in 2011. However, four of the accused had passed away during the trial, and one was acquitted.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

In its judgment, the Supreme Court noted serious inconsistencies in the prosecution's case. The bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized several crucial aspects that led to the acquittal:

Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony

The primary eyewitness, Faeem Ahmed (PW-1), was deemed unreliable. The court noted that while he claimed to have witnessed the assault, his actions raised doubts about his credibility. Instead of immediately informing the police, he hid in a nearby alley and later went to the police station. Moreover, he admitted in cross-examination that he was a stock witness for the police in previous cases, including one against another accused, Aziz @ Patti.

Contradictions in Witness Testimonies

The court found significant discrepancies in the statements of other key witnesses, particularly Abdul Wahid (PW-4) and Abdul Jameel (PW-3). PW-4 initially described witnessing the attack but later contradicted himself, stating that he had not seen the assault. He also delayed reporting the crime to the police, which the court found unusual given that his brother-in-law was the victim.

Lack of Forensic Evidence

The police failed to collect crucial forensic evidence, such as blood samples from the crime scene and the motorcycle on which the deceased was allegedly traveling. The investigating officer (PW-17) admitted that the motorcycle, a key piece of evidence, was never seized. This omission cast doubt on the prosecution's narrative of how the incident unfolded.

Delayed and Questionable Recoveries

The prosecution relied on the alleged recovery of weapons used in the crime, including knives and a katar, based on confessional statements made by the accused. However, these recoveries were made after several days, and no bloodstains were found on the weapons. The forensic examination of the seized items was also inconclusive. Additionally, the seizure witnesses turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution's claims.

Implausibility of the Incident as Described

The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies regarding the presence of a large crowd at the scene. According to prosecution witnesses, over 100 people were present when the attack occurred, yet no one intervened or reported the crime. The police station was only 300-400 meters away, making it improbable that officers would not have heard the commotion.

Inconsistencies in the Medical Evidence

The post-mortem report confirmed multiple stab wounds but contradicted some claims made by witnesses. For instance, PW-1 stated that Babu stabbed Ahsan in the abdomen first, but the medical report did not record any such injury. Furthermore, the doctor (PW-15) testified that all eight injuries could have been caused by a single weapon, challenging the prosecution's claim of multiple attackers with different weapons.

The Court’s Verdict

Citing the lack of credible evidence, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment highlighted the principle that in criminal trials, conviction cannot be based on suspicion or weak circumstantial evidence. The accused were acquitted, and their bail bonds were discharged.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the importance of a thorough and impartial investigation in criminal cases. The court's observations underline the necessity of corroborative evidence, reliable eyewitness testimony, and proper forensic analysis to ensure justice. The verdict also raises concerns about the investigative lapses in the case, particularly the failure to collect and analyze critical evidence.

The acquittal of Abdul Wahid, Babu, and Abdul Shakur after more than three decades signifies a major legal turnaround, highlighting the significance of procedural diligence and the burden of proof required in criminal law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the 1988 Kota murder case serves as a stark reminder of the challenges in criminal justice administration. While the loss of Ahsan Ali remains tragic, the judgment underscores that convictions must be based on solid and indisputable evidence. With this ruling, the legal saga that began in 1988 has finally reached its conclusion.