The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant reaffirmation of the foundational principle that conviction in criminal cases cannot rest on uncertain or uncorroborated eyewitness testimony. In quashing the conviction of two appellants, the Court emphasized that the prosecution’s failure to establish identity beyond reasonable doubt renders any finding of guilt unsustainable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, Ajay Nanasaheb Mhaske and Shaikh Azhar Shaikh Kadir, were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, under Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder. The prosecution alleged that on 12.05.2022, the appellants attacked the complainant, one Rajesh Patil, with sharp weapons near a roadside dhaba in Aurangabad district, causing grievous injuries. The complainant survived and lodged an FIR on the same day.
Key Facts
- The incident occurred on 12.05.2022 at approximately 10:30 PM near the Dhaba on Mumbai-Aurangabad Highway, Aurangabad
- The complainant, Rajesh Patil, was admitted to Government Medical College Hospital, Aurangabad, on 12.05.2022 with multiple lacerated wounds and fractures
- The First Information Report (FIR No. 112/2022) was registered on 12.05.2022 at 11:45 PM
- The charge sheet was filed on 18.11.2022 under Sections 307, 34, and 201 IPC
- The prosecution relied exclusively on the testimony of the complainant and one other eyewitness, one Suresh Deshmukh
- No recovery of weapons, no forensic evidence, and no independent corroborative evidence was produced
- The appellants denied the allegations and claimed alibi, stating they were at a relative’s house in Jalna during the incident
- The complainant’s initial statement to the police did not name the appellants; their names were added only during the recording of his statement under Section 161 CrPC on 15.05.2022
- The complainant’s identification of the appellants in court was inconsistent with his earlier statements and was marked by hesitation and contradictions
Procedural History
- 12.05.2022: Incident and FIR registration
- 15.05.2022: Complainant’s statement under Section 161 CrPC recorded; appellants named for the first time
- 18.11.2022: Charge sheet filed by Police
- 20.01.2026: Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, convicted both appellants under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them to 10 years rigorous imprisonment
- 25.01.2026: Appellants filed Criminal Appeal No. 139/2026 and Criminal Appeal No. 99/2026 before the Bombay High Court
- 05.02.2026: Criminal Applications Nos. 556/2026, 984/2026, and 1029/2026 filed seeking interim relief and stay of sentence
- 26.03.2026: Final hearing concluded before the Division Bench
Relief Sought
The appellants sought quashing of the conviction and sentence, acquittal on grounds of reasonable doubt, and release from custody. They also sought exemption from payment of costs, though ultimately accepted the Court’s direction to deposit Rs. 50,000 each into the Police Welfare Fund.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether conviction under Section 307 IPC can be sustained solely on the testimony of a single eyewitness whose identification is inconsistent, delayed, and uncorroborated by any physical or independent evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
Counsel for the appellants relied on State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Kashmir Singh v. State of Rajasthan to argue that identification of accused in court, especially when not disclosed in the FIR or initial statements, is inherently unreliable. They emphasized that the complainant’s testimony contained material contradictions: he initially described the attackers as wearing masks, yet later identified the appellants clearly in court without any disguise. The alibi evidence, though not fully proven, created sufficient doubt. The absence of recovery of weapons, medical reports confirming weapon type, or independent witnesses rendered the prosecution case speculative.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the complainant’s testimony was credible and consistent in substance, and that minor inconsistencies in recollection were natural under trauma. It argued that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence and that appellate courts should not interfere unless the finding was perverse. The State did not produce any independent evidence to corroborate the identification.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidence and found the prosecution’s case to be fundamentally defective. The complainant’s failure to name the appellants in the FIR or in his initial statement under Section 161 CrPC was a critical flaw. The Court noted that the names were introduced only after the appellants were arrested, raising suspicion of tailoring.
"The identification of the accused by the complainant in court, after a gap of more than three years, and without any prior disclosure, cannot be the sole basis for conviction, especially when the accused have raised a plausible alibi and the prosecution has failed to adduce any corroborative evidence."
The Court further observed that the testimony of the second eyewitness, Suresh Deshmukh, was vague and lacked specificity regarding the appellants’ involvement. He could not describe the weapons used, the sequence of events, or even the clothing worn by the accused. The Court held that the prosecution had not discharged its burden under Section 105 of the Evidence Act to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court also rejected the State’s reliance on the severity of injuries as proof of guilt, noting that the nature of injury does not establish identity. The absence of forensic evidence, such as DNA, fingerprints, or weapon recovery, further weakened the case.
The Verdict
The appellants succeeded. The Court quashed the conviction and sentence dated 20.01.2026, and acquitted both Ajay Nanasaheb Mhaske and Shaikh Azhar Shaikh Kadir. They are to be released forthwith unless detained in any other case. The fine amount already deposited by them is confiscated to the Government. Each appellant shall deposit a cost of Rs. 50,000 within four weeks from the date of uploading of this order, to be credited to the Police Welfare Fund. The matter is listed for compliance on 08.06.2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Identification Must Be Prompt and Consistent
- Practitioners must challenge convictions based on delayed or inconsistent eyewitness identification, especially when names are absent from the FIR
- Courts must scrutinize whether identification was made at the earliest opportunity or only after arrest
- Any gap between incident and identification must be explained; silence or delay is fatal to prosecution
Corroboration Is Non-Negotiable in Absence of Forensic Evidence
- In cases relying solely on eyewitnesses, independent corroboration - such as recovery of weapons, mobile location data, CCTV footage, or medical reports linking injuries to specific weapons - is essential
- The absence of such evidence, even in grievous cases, cannot be compensated by emotional testimony
- The burden remains on the prosecution; the accused need not prove innocence
Alibi, Even If Not Fully Proven, Creates Reasonable Doubt
- A plausible alibi, supported by even circumstantial evidence (e.g., witness statements, travel records, phone logs), must be given due weight
- The Court need not accept the alibi as true, but if it raises a reasonable doubt, acquittal is mandatory
- Trial courts often underestimate the impact of alibi evidence; appellate courts must correct this error
