Back
2026 Supreme(SC) 457
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KUMAR, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Sadek Ali @ Md. Sadek Ali and Another – Appellants
Versus
The State of Assam and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 850 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 1264 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 1428 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 1096 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No. 852 of 2022, Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No. 2210 of 2026 [SLP (Crl.) No. 7857 of 2026] [Diary No. 46790 of 2024]
Decided On : 28-04-2026
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Mansoor Ali, AOR Ms. Rubina Jawed, Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Shuktiz Sinha, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. F. I. Choudhury, AOR Mr. David Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR Mr Naresh Kumar, AOR Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shalini Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Vineet Jindal, Adv. Mr. Syed Faizan Ali, Adv. Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Chinmoy Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastva, Adv. Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv. Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Conviction and sentence cannot be sustained where there is no credible evidence to substantiate prosecution case.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 341, 326, 307, 323 and 302 read with Section 149 – Murder, Attempt to murder and wrongful confinement – Common object of unlawful assembly – Conviction and sentence – Delay in registering FIR – None of eyewitnesses thought it fit to make statement before Police – Related witnesses cannot always be termed to be interested witnesses, but incident having occurred on a public road their presence together cannot be presumed as natural – Motor bikes seized were also not produced before Court – Eyewitnesses paraded before Court are not believable since their presence in P.O is highly improbable for not being established unequivocally – Weapons seized were neither sent for forensic analysis, nor were they confronted to eyewitnesses or Doctor who conducted postmortem – Police Officer failed to follow due procedure to put criminal investigation in motion as per Cr.P.C. – There is no credible evidence to substantiate prosecution case – Appellants acquitted. (Paras 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
16 persons were charge-sheeted as accused, of which one died during trial. Out of remaining, 12 were convicted and sentenced under Sections 147, 341, 326, 307, 323 and 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. Eighteen witnesses were examined before trial court, of which six were eyewitnesses: one disbelieved by trial court and High Court. The defence examined two witnesses and denied their culpability. Appellants are convicted accused, two of whom have passed away.
Findings of Court:
Be it ignorance, inefficiency or malicious motivation, crime is left unresolved and considerable time and money has been spent in prosecution of 16 persons, some of whom died during trial and others suffered incarceration for long periods. State and its Department of Home would do well to better equip their officers in investigating crimes and educating them of due procedure.
Result : Appeals allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment notes that there is no credible evidence to sustain the murder/related charges due to unreliable eyewitnesses and inconsistencies (!) (!) (!) . - It emphasizes issues with investigation timing, FIR vs GD/ FIS entries, and delayed or improperly registered FIRs, casting doubt on the prosecution case (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . - It discusses the absence of weapon forensic analysis and lack of corroboration between postmortem findings, injuries, and weapon evidence (!) (!) . - It highlights problems with collection and reliability of statements under Cr.P.C. sections 161 and 164 and the overall procedure of investigation (!) (!) (!) . - The High Court and trial court acceptance of eyewitness testimony based on early GD entries is challenged, leading to acquittal of appellants (!) (!) (!) . - The judgment critiques the role of police and investigation quality, urging better investigation practices (!) (!) . - The result of the Appeals is allowed, with acquittal of the appellants and cancellation of bail bonds (!) . - The postmortem and injury details support the homicidal conclusion but are not enough given other irregularities (!) (!) (!) .
Question 1?
How to assess credibility of eyewitnesses and determine whether there is credible evidence to substantiate a murder/conspiracy case?
Question 2?
What is the standard for the admissibility and reliability of FIR/ GD entries versus formal FIR under Cr.P.C.?
Question 3?
What are the legal consequences when the investigation is deemed inept or script-based, impacting convictions in murder/attempted murder cases?
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
crime and sentencing
-
offences against the person
- murder
- attempt to murder
- wrongful confinement
- common object of unlawful assembly
-
offences against the person
-
practice and procedure
-
investigation procedure
- fir registration
- evidence collection
- witness examination
-
code of criminal procedure
- section 161
- section 164
-
investigation procedure
-
evidence
- eyewitness testimony
- forensic evidence
- postmortem evidence
- seizure evidence
-
constitutional law
- right to fair trial
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. An inept investigation or a scripted enquiry, both are fatal to criminal prosecution; but the latter has lethal consequences when there is a possibility of totally innocent persons being crucified. In the present case 16 persons were charge-sheeted as accused, of which one died during the trial. Out of the remaining, 12 were convicted and sentenced under Sections 147, 341, 326, 307, 323 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.1 [For brevity ‘IPC’] Eighteen witnesses were examined before the trial court, of which six were eyewitnesses: one disbelieved by the trial court and the High Court. The defense examined two witnesses and denied their culpability. The appellants are the convicted accused, two of whom have passed away.
2. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Counsel for some of the appellants, emphasized that though a GD entry was made and immediately police went to the place of occurrence (P.O) the FIR was registered after three days on the written complaint of PW1 naming all the accused: clearly making the arraignment after due deliberation. The investigation was commenced on the GD entry, but the prosecution is based on the FIR, which was pursuant to another GD entry. The eyewitnesses are said to be wholly unreliable, there being inconsistencies in their own narration and amongst themselves. The deposition regarding the overt acts is disparate and the injuries were never compared with the weapons, and they were also inconsistent with the post-mortem report. There is no recovery of weapons and even the seized weapons were never sent for forensic analysis. There was no proof regarding the injuries suffered by the so-called injured witnesses, making their very presence at the P.O doubtful. The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that no statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. were taken from the witnesses paraded before Court and the statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C. were recorded far later. The learned Counsel appearing for the other appellants adopted the arguments raised by the learned Senior Counsel.
3. Mr. Chinmoy Sharma learned Senior AAG appearing for the respondent-State vehemently argued that there were five eyewitnesses, believed concurrently by the trial court and the High Court. The eyewitnesses remained unshaken in cross-examination. The Investigating Officer (IO-PW18) spoke of the injury suffered by PW14, one of the injured eyewitnesses; his statement having been recorded at a hospital. The investigation had proceeded based on the GD entry and the High Court correctly found the same to be the first information. The eyewitnesses who were accompanying the deceased at the time of the incident had run away from the P.O, out of fear for their lives, the concerted attack having been made by 16 persons carrying deadly weapons. The other witnesses who came to the P.O immediately after the attack fully corroborated the eyewitnesses. The postmortem report indicated the death having been caused from injuries inflicted by sharp cutting weapons from different directions some of which were bone deep and the others impacting vital organs like the brain and lung. The evidence led at the trial, according to the learned Senior Counsel, was sufficient to find the accused guilty of the offences and there is no reason to upset the findings.
4. The High Court extracted and approved the findings of the trial court that the witnesses were examined on the strength of the GD entry, especially PW2 and PW13 who were eyewitnesses. The trial court found that since such examination was immediately after the incident, there is no reason to discard the evidence of other witnesses also, since otherwise it will send a wrong message. The High Court found that the attempt of the appellants’ counsel to decry the investigation on the ground of a delayed FIR falls flat, since there was already a GD entry recorded in the jurisdictional Police Station immediately after the incident whic
