Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 914

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Sakhawat and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 4571 of 2024
Decided On : 23-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. K Parmeshwar, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sudeep Kumar, AOR Ms. Manisha, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder and attempt to murder – Failure to conduct further investigation based on affidavits goes to root of matter – Failure to recover weapons of offence also becomes relevant.
(2) Fair trial – Objective of investigation is to ensure that real culprits are brought to justice – Legal system must ensure that an innocent person is not punished.

Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India – Article 21 – Fair trial – Under Article 21 of Constitution of India, accused is entitled to fair trial – Even Police are under obligation to carry out fair investigation – This is a crucial aspect of fairness – Objective of investigation is to ensure that real culprits are brought to justice – Legal system must ensure that an innocent person is not punished. (Para 17)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 – Murder and attempt to murder – Life imprisonment – Three major prosecution witnesses, who were eyewitnesses, had filed affidavits before Sessions Court stating that present appellants were not the culprits – Sessions Court relied upon affidavits for granting bail to accused – After getting knowledge of affidavits, it was duty of Investigating Officer to record supplementary statements of these three eyewitnesses about affidavits and contents of affidavits – He has come out with a lame excuse that he did not controvert said affidavit by filing a counter-affidavit, as witnesses could not be traced – If presence of witness is required during investigation, there are elaborate provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for procuring presence of witnesses – By failing to carry out further investigation on the basis of affidavits, prosecution has failed to carry out fair investigation – Prosecution also tried to suppress affidavits – Failure to conduct further investigation based on affidavits goes to root of matter – Failure to recover weapons of offence also becomes relevant in background of these circumstances – Impugned judgments and orders insofar as appellants are concerned set aside and appellants acquitted of offences alleged against them. (Paras 20, 22, 23 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9th October, 2018 of the High Court of Allahabad. Impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the appellant nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Both of them were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
Findings of Court:
Trial Court should not be referred to as “Lower Court Record”. Describing any Court as a “Lower Court” is against ethos of our Constitution.
Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT :

(Abhay S. Oka, J.)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9th October, 2018 of the High Court of Allahabad. The impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the appellant nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Both of them were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.

2. First Information Report (for short, ‘the FIR’) dated 5th May, 1981 was registered against the accused no. 1 (Abrar), appellant no. 1/accused no. 2 (Sakhawat) and appellant no. 2/accused no. 3 (Mehndi) for the aforementioned offences. The case of the prosecution is that PW-4 (Amir Hussain) was sleeping under a Babool tree, and the deceased (Sukha) was sleeping in his hut. On the intervening night of 4th/5th May, 1981, PW-4 (Amir Hussain) woke up at 2 a.m. to the sound of a firearm being shot. PW-5 (Allah Baksh) and PW-6 (Mohd. Hanif) also arrived at the scene where they heard a voice from the hut of the deceased (Sukha) and a firearm shot. They saw appellant no. 1 armed with a country-made pistol, appellant no. 2 armed with a knife, and accused no. 1 armed with a danda. The accused allegedly had a scuffle with the deceased and PW-7 (Nanhi), who were allegedly in an illicit relationship. Appellant no. 2 inflicted an injury to the neck of PW-7 using his knife. The accused fled and the deceased was found trembling on account of injuries near his hut, and eventually succumbed to the injuries.

3. On 16th October 1982, the Trial Court convicted appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2 for the offences alleged against them, and a sentence of life imprisonment was imposed. The Trial Court acquitted the accused no. 1 as he had only held a danda and no injury marks were found on the deceased or PW-7 that were made using a danda.

4. The present appellants are accused nos. 2 and 3. They had preferred an appeal before the High Court. By the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

5. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses to prove their case. PW-1 (Dr. R. M. Bhardwaj) is the doctor who conducted the autopsy of the deceased, PW-2 (Dr. K. Chandra) is the doctor who examined the injuries of PW- 7, and PW-3 (Dr. Pratibha Gupta) is the gynaecologist who examined PW-7. PW-4 (Amir Hussain) is the informant/complainant who has been examined as an eye witness to the offence. He was sleeping just a few steps away when he heard noises and rushed to the scene of the crime. PW-5 (Allah Baksh) and PW-6 (Mohd. Hanif) have been examined as eye-witnesses and arrived at the crime scene on hearing a gunshot. PW-7 is an injured witness who was allegedly in an illicit relationship with the deceased and was declared hostile when she claimed that PW-4 and accused no. 1 shot the deceased and wounded her. PW-8 (Raj Bahadur Singh) is the constable who accompanied the dead body for autopsy. PW-9 (Noora) was acquainted with both the deceased and PW-7 and deposed on the existence of a relationship between the deceased and PW-7. PW-10 (Harpal Singh) is the Investigating Officer who initiated the inquest proceedings, drew a site map, made seizures and recorded statements of witnesses.

SUBMISSIONS

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has taken us through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He submitted that both PW-5 (Allah Baksh) and PW-6 (Mohd. Hanif) had sworn affidavits at the time of consideration of bail applications of the appellants. Those affidavits were in favour of the accused. Though both the witnesses during their cross-examination have denied having filed such affidavits, the defence witnesses have proved the fact that such affidavits were filed. He pointed out that PW-5 stated that he had gone to the police station along with PW-4 and was detained at the police station. However, PW-6, son of PW-5, says that PW- 5 had not gone to the police station.

7. Learned senior counsel submitted tha