[2025] 7 S.C.R. 139
(Criminal Appeal No. 4571 of 2024), delivered on 23 May 20251.
Core Issue The Supreme Court considered the correctness of the High Court’s decision to uphold the conviction of the appellants, given that the prosecution allegedly failed to conduct a fair investigation and suppressed affidavits of eyewitnesses.
Factual Background The case involved the murder of a person named Sukha and injuries to another individual, Nanhi. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered against three accused, including the two appellants, Sakhawat (accused no. 2) and Mehndi (accused no. 3)2. The prosecution alleged that on the night of 4/5 May 1981, the appellants and another accused (Abrar) were seen armed and involved in a scuffle, after which Sukha died and Nanhi was injured2.
Lower Courts’ Decisions The Trial Court convicted the appellants (Sakhawat and Mehndi) for murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment, while acquitting the third accused (Abrar)3. The High Court subsequently upheld the conviction of both appellants3.
Appellants’ Arguments The appellants argued that the prosecution’s case was deeply flawed due to several reasons, including:
• Suppressed Affidavits: Two key eyewitnesses for the prosecution, PW-5 (Allah Baksh) and PW-6 (Mohd. Hanif), had sworn affidavits during the bail hearings, stating that the appellants were not involved45. The injured witness, PW-7 (Nanhi), also filed an affidavit implicating other individuals (PW-4 and Akbar) as the assailants5.
• Investigating Officer’s Failure: The Investigating Officer (IO) admitted awareness of these affidavits but failed to conduct further investigation based on them or file any counter-affidavits67.
• Non-Recovery of Weapons: The weapons allegedly used in the crime were not recovered, and no Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report was on record8.
• Delay in FIR: There was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and conducting the post-mortem8.
• Contradictions: Contradictions existed in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses8.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning and Decision The Supreme Court, in its analysis, acknowledged the concurrent findings of the lower courts but found that certain crucial aspects were overlooked, which went “to the root of the matter”910.
The Court highlighted the following:
• Fair Investigation as a Fundamental Right: The Court emphasised that a fair investigation is a crucial aspect of fairness under Article 21 of the Constitution, aimed at ensuring that the real culprits are brought to justice and that no innocent person is punished9.
• Impact of Eyewitness Affidavits: The fact that three out of four eyewitnesses (PW-5, PW-6, and PW-7) had admittedly filed affidavits during bail hearings, stating that the accused were not involved, was a significant anomaly. The Session Court itself had relied on these affidavits to grant bail to the accused511.
• Investigating Officer’s Lapses: The IO’s admission that he knew about these affidavits but failed to record supplementary statements or file a counter-affidavit, offering a “lame excuse” of untraceable witnesses, indicated a serious flaw in the investigation6….
• Suppression of Material: The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to carry out a fair investigation and suppressed important material in the form of these affidavits1113.
• Doubt on Witness Truthfulness: This suppression and the IO’s conduct created “serious doubt about the truthfulness of the versions of PW-5 to PW-7” presented in court13. The Court also noted that PW-5 was detained for 24 hours before his statement was recorded, further raising doubts about its veracity13.
• Unsafe to Convict: The Court determined that it was “unsafe to convict the appellants only on the basis of the testimony of PW-4” (the informant), especially when the failure to conduct further investigation based on the affidavits and the non-recovery of weapons were so critical13.
Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court and the Sessions Court had overlooked these “highly relevant aspects”10.
Final Outcome The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the Trial Court, and acquitted the appellants of the offences alleged against them14. Their bail bonds were cancelled14.
Notable Remark The Court also took the opportunity to reiterate its previous direction that the record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as “Lower Court Record”, stating that “Describing any Court as a ‘Lower Court’ is against the ethos of our Constitution”
