Enmity

If, on the one hand, it provides a motive for the accused to commit the occurrence in question, on the other hand, it equally provides an opportunity for the first informant to implicate his enemy.

Enmity is double edged weapon that cut both ways, on one hand, it provides a motive for accused to commit the occurrence, on the other hand, it equally provides an opportunity for the first informant to implicate his enemy.

Mere existence of enmity between the parties was not enough to disbelieve the version of complainant party supported by medical evidence.

Conviction on the basis of inimical witnesses was against the principles of natural justice.

When solitary ocular version is unimpeachable and confidence inspiring mere existence of enmity becomes irrelevant.

In the absence of enmity with the complainant and witnesses or the deceased, a procedural formality could not be insisted at the cost of completion of an offence

If the accused was otherwise found connected with the commission of an offence then mere procedural omission and even allegation of improper conduct of investigation would not help the accused/ convict.

Enmity was double-edged weapon which cut both sides but propriety of safe administration of justice demanded to evaluate evidence on all aspects viz interested, related and inimical as well motive with care and caution.

Enmity could be a ground for false implication.

Enmity was a double-edged weapon, which would cut both ways. [Para. 18 of the judgment]

Enmity was a double edged weapon, which would cut both ways; on the one hand, it provided a motive for the accused to commit the occurrence and on the other it equally provide opportunity to the first informant to implicate his enemy.

If on one side, enmity provided a motive for the accused to commit an offence on the other hand, equally provided opportunity to the complainant to implicate his enemy.

lf the enmity would give rise to plea of false involvement, then same would allow to presume commission of the complained offence.