JUDGMENT : Chandra Dhari Singh, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been filed against a judgement and order dated 19.12.1989 passed by the Special/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in ST No. 662 of 1988, under Sections 302 and 302/34 IPC, police Station Manglaur, district Haridwar, whereby the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants Nepal, Raj Kumar and Ved Pal to life imprisonment under Section 302 read with 34 IPC whereas appellant Tejbir was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. 2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 30.01.2026, criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant No. 2, 3 and 4, namely Nepal, Ved Pal and Raj Kumar is disposed of as abated. 3. Now, this Court is concerned with the criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant No. 1. Tejbir. Facts of the case 4. The facts that formed the bedrock of the present criminal appeal, are that a written report was given by Asghar, son of Allah Rakha at the police station Manglaur, district Haridwar with the allegations that certain portion of land belonging to Bidmani Pandit was purchased by his brother Rahman. Nepal and Tejbir wanted to purchase the said land. At the time of purchase of the said land, altercation took place, due to which Nepal and Tejbir used to harbour animosity. When his brother was constructing the house over the said plot, they also made obstructions. In front of the house of his brother, there was a hut of Nepal and Tejbir and they were asked to remove the hut, but they refused and threatened of dire consequences. On 17.08.1987 at about 09:00 PM, when his cousin Rahman, Allah Rakha and Akram were coming back to village from Gurukul after supply of milk, on the way at the turning of Gurukul-Mohammadpur, they met Nepal, Tejbir, Ved Pal and Raj Kumar (herein after referred to as the accused), who were armed with country made pistols. On seeing his brother, accused-Nepal, Raj Kumar and Ved Pal exhorted that he be killed and thereupon Tejbir, with an intention to kill, fired at Rahman (hereinafter referred to as the deceased), due to which he fell down. However, accused managed to escape. The accused were identified by Allah Rakha and Akram in the light of torch and brought the deceased to Gurukul and the first informant was called from the village. However, accused managed to escape. The accused were identified by Allah Rakha and Akram in the light of torch and brought the deceased to Gurukul and the first informant was called from the village. Thereafter, deceased was taken to Muzaffarnagar. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, a Chik FIR was registered by Clerk Constable Sunil Kumar, Ext. Ka-4, which was entered in GD, Ext. Ka-5. 6. After the registration of the case, the law set into motion and investigation of the case was entrusted to PW-5, SI Yogendra Singh. On the pointing out of witnesses Allah Rakha and Akram, he inspected the spot and prepared site plan, Ext. Ka-6. He also collected bloodstained and simple earth, Ext. Ka-7. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of witnesses Akram and Allah Rakha. After the death of the deceased-Rahman, he converted the case to one under Section 302 IPC vide GD No. 10 at 07:20 AM. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was taken up by SO Shri Virendra Kumar Sharma. 7. PW-4, SO Virendra Kumar Sharma in his examination- in-chief deposed that earlier investigation of the case was conducted by SI Yogendra Singh. On 18.08.1987, he recorded the statement of witness Bidmani Pandit. He arrested accused Raj Kumar on 24.08.1987, accused Nepal Singh on 25.08.1987 and accused Tejbir Singh on 02.09.1987. After completing necessary formalities, he submitted charge sheet against the appellants on 03.11.1987, which he proved as Ext. Ka-3. 8. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where case was registered as ST No. 662 of 1988. Learned Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur vide order dated 12.04.1989 framed the charge against the appellants Nepal Singh, Ved Pal and Raj Kumar under Section 302/34 IPC, whereas charge against the appellant Tejbir Singh was framed under Section 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 9. To bring home guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. 9. To bring home guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. PW- 1, Asghar is the first informant of the case, PW-2, Akram and PW-3, Allah Rakha are the witnesses of fact, PW-4, SHO Vinod Kumar Sharma, the second investigating officer of the case, who submitted the charge sheet, PW- 5, SI Yogendra Singh, the first investigating officer of the case and PW-6, Dr. N.P. Sharma, who conducted autopsy on the cadaver of the deceased. 10. PW-1, Asghar is the first informant of the case. He reiterated the versions given in the FIR. He further deposed that on 17.08.1987, he was present at his home. At about 09:15 PM, 2-3 persons came and told him that some one has fired at his brother. He came to Gurukul, where he saw that Rahman was lying. Allah Rakha and Akram were with him, who told him about the story of the incident. Accordingly, he wrote the report and handed over at the police station Manglaur, Ext. Ka-1. Allah Rakha and Rahman took Rahman to Muzaffarnagar, where he succumbed to the injury. 11. PW-2, Akram, in his examination-in-chief deposed that deceased was his brother-in-law (Sala). He knows accused Tejbir, Nepal, Raj Kumar and Ved Pal, who are the resident of Mohammadpur. Deceased was also the resident of Mohammadpur. On the date of incident when he along with Allah Rakha and Rahman was coming back to Mohammadpur after supply of milk to Gurukul in three different cycles and when reached near the turning at about 09:00 PM, someone fired at Rahman. It was a dark night and he could not see as to who fired shot. He saw 4- 5 persons running, but he could not see the face of the accused. 12. At this juncture, on the request of prosecution, this witness has been declared hostile and prosecution were permitted to cross examine him. 13. PW-3, Allah Rakha in his examination-in-chief, deposed that he along with Rahman and Akram used to sell milk. When he along with Rahman and Akram was coming back to village on cycle after supply of milk to Gurukul. This witness and Akram were having a torch, they kept on flashing the torch and when they reached near the turning at about 09:00 PM, four persons met them on the way. They were Nepal, Tejbir, Ved Pal and Raj Kumar of the village. This witness and Akram were having a torch, they kept on flashing the torch and when they reached near the turning at about 09:00 PM, four persons met them on the way. They were Nepal, Tejbir, Ved Pal and Raj Kumar of the village. They were having separate country made pistol. On seeing Rahman, Nepal, Raj Kumar and Ved Pal exhorted to kill him. Thereupon accused Tejbir fired at Rahman (deceased), who, on being injured, fell down. He further deposed that after the incident 2-3 unknown persons met him at the place of occurrence and they were told by this witness to inform at his home about the incident. After sometimes, his son Asghar and other persons reached Gurukul, to whom he told about the incident. Thereafter, Asghar wrote the report and handed over at the police station Manglaur. Injured was taken to Muzaffarnagar Hospital, where he breathed his last. 14. The evidence of PW-4, Virendra Kumar Sharma, the second investigating officer and PW-5, SI Yogendra Singh, the first investigating officer has already been discussed above. 15. PW-6, N.P. Sharma, deposed that on 18.08.1987, he was posted at Muzaffar Nagar Hospital. On that date at about 03:30 PM, he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased-Rahman, who was brought by Constable 251 Jagveer Singh and Home Guard 1496 Ghanshyam along with relevant documents. He found the following injuries on the person of the deceased: “1. Multiple gun shot wound of entries in an area of 30 cm x 28 cm on both side of chest and upper part of abdomen and front of neck size varying 2 cm x 1 cm to ½ cm x ½ cm depth- skin to cavity deep. Margins are lacerated and inverted. No blackening and tattooing is present. 2. Three gun shot would of entry in an area of 6 cm x 3 cm on the front and inner aspect of left upper arm, size ½ cm x ½ cm x skin deep. Margin lacerated. No blackening and tattooing present. 3. Five gun shot wound of entry in an area of 8 cm x 4 cm on the front and outer aspect of right upper arm, size ½ cm x ½ cm x skin deep. Margin lacerated. No blackening and tattooing present. 4. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm over back of right elbow. 5. No blackening and tattooing present. 3. Five gun shot wound of entry in an area of 8 cm x 4 cm on the front and outer aspect of right upper arm, size ½ cm x ½ cm x skin deep. Margin lacerated. No blackening and tattooing present. 4. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm over back of right elbow. 5. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm over the upper part of left thigh. 6. Abrasion 3 cm x 1 cm over upper part of right thigh. 16. In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries. The death could have been caused after 09:00 PM on 17/18.08.1987. 17. Doctor also found three small metallic pellets from right lung, four small metallic pellets from left lung, five small metallic pellets recovered in chest cavity, three small metallic pellets are recovered from chest wall. 18. During cross-examination, to a specific question, doctor stated that fire was made from the distance beyond 6 feet. He further deposed that he cannot tell definitely that the injuries was the result of how many fires. 19. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the charges levelled against him and claimed false implication. 20. Learned Special/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and assessing, evaluating and scrutinizing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants as indicated herein above. 21. Hence, this appeal. 22. Mr. Mohammad Kalim, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the appellants have been falsely dragged in the present case due to enmity. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that PW-2, Akram, who claimed himself to be the eyewitness of the occurrence, did not support the prosecution case and declared hostile. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that PW-3, who claimed himself to be the eyewitness is close relative of the deceased and the first informant. 25. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State supported the findings of the learned trial court by stating that the prosecution has discharged its burden by establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 25. On the other hand, Shri R.K. Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State supported the findings of the learned trial court by stating that the prosecution has discharged its burden by establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He further submitted that the judgement is well reasoned and calls for no interference by this Court. 26. Heard Mr. Mohammad Kalim, learned counsel appearing on behalf of surviving appellant-Tejbir and Mr. R.K. Gupta, learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State and perused the record of the case. 27. The first argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no eye witness of the occurrence and appellant has been dragged in the instant case due to enmity. 28. A witness in a crime is a vital component in the administration of justice. By providing evidence related to the allegation of the offence, the witness fulfils a holy obligation of aiding the court in discovering the truth or rather facts. That is why before presenting testimony, a witness takes an oath in the name of God or makes a solemn statement that he/she will narrate the truth, the entire truth and nothing but the truth. In our justice system, witnesses play a critical role in assisting courts in making effective judgements, ensuring that justice is given to those who need it the most. 29. By now it is well settled by a catena of judgements of Hon’ble Supreme Court that enmity is a double edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive for the commission of the offence, on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication. 30. Now, coming to the evidence of prosecution witnesses. PW-1, Asghar, who is the first informant of the case, was admittedly not an eyewitness of the case. He has lodged the first information report only on the narration of PW-2, Akram and PW-3, Allah Rakha. In the first information report as well as in his evidence before the Court, PW-1, Asghar has admitted his enmity with the accused-Nepal and Tejbir. 31. In this case two prosecution witnesses, namely PW-2, Akram and PW-3, Allah Rakha have been shown as eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-2, Akram, who is the real brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of the deceased did no support the prosecution case from the very beginning and has been declared hostile. 32. 31. In this case two prosecution witnesses, namely PW-2, Akram and PW-3, Allah Rakha have been shown as eyewitness of the occurrence. PW-2, Akram, who is the real brother-in-law (Bahnoi) of the deceased did no support the prosecution case from the very beginning and has been declared hostile. 32. So far as the evidence of hostile witness is concerned, a three Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (1991)3 SCC 627 , relying upon catena of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court, held that “evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. It was further held that the evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. 33. In State of U.P. Ramesh Prasad Mishra , (1996) 10 SCC 635 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. 34. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhajju Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 327 discussed the worth of the evidence of a hostile witness in the following words: “It is settled law that the evidence of hostile witnesses can also be relied upon by the prosecution to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version of the incident. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as washed off the records, it remains admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to base the conviction of the accused upon such testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence…” 35. In Selvamani Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police , 2024 SCC OnLinw SC 837, after considering a catena of its earlier judgements on the point, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.” 36. The judgement in Ramesh Prasad Mishra (Supra) was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dadu alias Ankush and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another , 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1178. 37. In the light of the above settled proposition of law, we shall not discuss the evidence of PW-2, Akram. In his evidence, PW-2 has stated that deceased was his brother-in-law (Sala). He knows accused Tejbir, Nepal, Raj Kumar and Ved Pal, who are the resident of Mohammadpur. Deceased was also the resident of Mohammadpur. On the date of incident when he along with Allah Rakha and Rahman were coming back to Mohammadpur after supply of milk to Gurukul in three different cycles and when they reached near the turning at about 09:00 PM, some one fired at Rahman. It was a dark night and he could not see as to who fired shot. He saw 4-5 persons running, but he could not see the face of the accused. 38. Since, from the very beginning of his evidence, he did not support the prosecution case and stated in clear terms that although he saw 4-5 persons running after committing the murder of Rahman, the deceased, but as it was a dark night, he could not see the face of the accused. This witness PW-2, Akram was also subjected to lengthy cross-examination, but nothing could be elicited from his mouth to support the prosecution case. Therefore, from his evidence no benefit can be derived by the prosecution. 39. Now, coming to the testimony of PW-3, Allah Rakha, who supported the prosecution case and who is related and interested witness being the uncle of the deceased. 40. The rule of prudence of the point of related and interested witnesses is that their evidence should be meticulously and carefully examined. Before discussing the evidence of PW-3, Allah Rakha, it would be useful to refer to certain pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court on the point: 41. In Masalti Vs. State of U.P. (1964) 8 SCR 133 the Supreme Court observed: "But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan, would invariably lead to failure of justice. The mechanical rejection of such evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan, would invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to how much evidence should be appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautious in dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct." 42. In Raju Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2012)4 SCC (Cri)184 , Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “The sum and substance is that the evidence of a related or interested witness should be meticulously and carefully examined. In a case where the related and interested witness may have some enmity with the assailant, the bar would need to be raised and the evidence of the witness would have to be examined by applying a standard of discerning scrutiny.” 43. The aforesaid decision in Raju (Supra) was followed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Edakkandi Dineshan alias P. Dineshan and others Vs. State of Kerala , (2025) 3 SCC 273 . 44. In Criminal Appeal No. 2490 of 2014 ( Chhote Lal Vs. Rohtash and others ), decided on 14.12.2023, Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “It may not be out of context to mention that the appellant/complainant, a sole eyewitness, happens to be the most interested witness being the father of the deceased and having long enmity with the group to which the accused persons belong, therefore, his testimony was to be examined with great caution and the High Court was justified in doing so and in doubting it so as to uphold the conviction on his solitary evidence” 45.. Keeping in view the observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgements referred to above, we shall not proceed to discuss the evidence of PW-3, Allah Rakha, who is the uncle of the deceased. Admittedly, at the place of occurrence, there was not source of light as is evident from the evidence of PW-3, Allah Rakha himself. PW-3, Allah Rakha in his evidence has stated that he along with Rahman and Akram was coming back to village on cycle after supply of milk to Gurukul. He along with Akram was having a torch, they kept on flashing the torch and when they reached near the turning at about 09:00 PM, four persons met them on the way. PW-3, Allah Rakha in his evidence has stated that he along with Rahman and Akram was coming back to village on cycle after supply of milk to Gurukul. He along with Akram was having a torch, they kept on flashing the torch and when they reached near the turning at about 09:00 PM, four persons met them on the way. They were Nepal, Tejbir, Ved Pal and Raj Kumar of the village. They were having separate country made pistols. On seeing Rahman, Nepal, Raj Kumar and Ved Pal exhorted to kill him. Thereupon accused Tejbir fired at Rahman (deceased), who, on being injured, fell down. He further deposed that after the incident 2-3 unknown persons met at the place of occurrence and they were told by this witness to inform at his home about the incident. After sometimes, his son Asghar and other persons reached Gurukul, to whom he told about the incident. Thereupon, his son by sitting at the same place written the report and left for police station Manglaur and thereafter Injured was taken to Muzaffarnagar Hospital, where he breathed his last. (emphasis added). 46. From the perusal of the above statement of PW-3, Allah Rakha it transpires that it was a dark night and while they were moving forward, they were flashing torch to see the pathway, which goes to suggest that they were even not in a position to see the pathway without the light of the torch. When pathway was not clearly visible to the witnesses, how they have seen all the four accused were having country made pistols in their respective hand. Further the conduct of the witnesses after the incident was also improbable inasmuch as after the occurrence, the injured instead of being taken to the hospital, he was taken to Gurukul and made him to lay on the road, waited for the arrival of his son and after the arrival of his son, he narrated the entire story to him, thereafter, he wrote the first information report by sitting on the road and thereafter, his son went to the police station to get the first information report lodged and this witness (PW-3 Allah Rakha) along with PW-2 Akram, took the injured to Muzaffarnagar, where he succumbed to his injuries. The aforesaid conduct of PW-3, Allah Rakha clearly shows that no one has seen the assailants and after the occurrence, the FIR has been lodged after due consultation with each other dragging the appellants in the case due to previous enmity. Further there is certain discrepancy in his evidence inasmuch PW-3, Allah Rakha in his examination-in-chief deposed that on the next day of the occurrence, Daroga Ji met him and inspected his torch, whereas in his cross examination he stated that Daroga Ji has inspected his torch after one month of the occurrence. 47. In view of the above, the conviction of the sole surviving appellant Tejbir cannot be made on the testimony of sole eyewitness PW-3, Allah Rakha, who is uncle of the deceased and whose evidence does not inspire confidence. 48. 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 appellanTejbir being falsely implicated on account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 49. In view of the above, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant-Tejbir beyond all reasonable doubt. 50. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 19.12.1989 passed by the Special/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saharanpur in ST No. 662 of 1988 convicting and sentencing the appellant Tejbir to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC is set aside. The appellant-Tejbir is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. 51. The appellant-Tejbir is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties are discharged. 52. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the court concerned for compliance and compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months.