Legal System Must Ensure That Innocent Person Is Not Punished: Supreme Court Acquits Two In 44-Year-Old Murder Case
The Appeal before the Supreme Court was filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court upholding the conviction of two accused persons.
Justice Abhay S Oka & Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has acquitted 2 accused in a 44-year-old murder case after noting that there was suppression of the affidavits by the prosecution. Referring to Article 21 of the Constitution, the Apex Court also held that the accused is entitled to a fair trial.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court. The impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the two appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Both of them were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.
Finding the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses to be very sketchy, the Division Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih said, “But, there is something which goes to the root of the matter. Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the accused is entitled to a fair trial. Even the Police are under an obligation to carry out a fair investigation. This is a crucial aspect of fairness. The objective of the investigation is to ensure that the real culprits are brought to justice. The legal system must ensure that an innocent person is not punished”
Reiterating the direction issued in the order dated February 8, 2024, that the record of the Trial Court should not be referred to as “Lower Court Record”, the Bench also noted, “Describing any Court as a “Lower Court” is against the ethos of our Constitution. The Registry has issued a Circular dated 28th February 2024 for giving effect to the order. The High Courts must take note of the above direction and act upon the same.”
AOR Vikrant Singh Bais represented the Appellants Sr. Additional Advocate General K Parmeshwar represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
It was the case of the Prosecution that PW4 (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, Hussain woke up at 2 a.m. to the sound of a firearm being shot. Other witnesses also arrived at the scene where they heard a voice from the hut of the deceased and a gunshot. They saw the first appellant armed with a country-made pistol & danda and the second appellant armed with a knife. The accused allegedly had a scuffle with the deceased and PW-7, who were allegedly in an illicit relationship. The second Appellant allegedly 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. The Trial Court convicted the appellants for the offences alleged against them, and a sentence of life imprisonment was imposed. The Trial Court acquitted the first accused 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. The present appellants are accused 2 and 3. They had preferred an appeal before the High Court but the same was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, they approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
As per the Bench, a crucial aspect had been missed by the High Court and the Sessions Court. The fifth and sixth prosecution witnesses had submitted the affidavits in the bail application in favour of the accused, but the police did not investigate by sending the affidavits and admitting the thumb impressions of the witnesses for examination by an expert. The Bench noted that the three major prosecution witnesses, who were the eyewitnesses, had admittedly filed the affidavits before the Session Court stating that the present appellants were not the culprits. The Session Court relied upon the affidavits for granting bail to the accused.
“After getting the knowledge of the affidavits, it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to record supplementary statements of these three eyewitnesses about the affidavits and the contents of the affidavits. He has come out with a lame excuse that he did not controvert the said affidavit by filing a counteraffidavit, as the witnesses could not be traced”, the Bench said.
Thus, three out of four eyewitnesses had admittedly filed the affidavits during the bail hearing of the accused, stating that the accused was not involved. However, the investigating officer did not controvert the affidavits, though time was granted to him. The stand taken by the affidavit of PW-7 was that PW-4 and Akbar are the assailants who killed the deceased.
The Bench was of the view that as the prosecution had not conducted a fair investigation and had suppressed important material in the form of affidavits, it was unsafe to convict the appellants only on the basis of the testimony of PW-4. As per the Bench, the failure to conduct further investigation based on the affidavits went to the root of the matter.
“Therefore, this is a case where there is failure on the part of the High Court and the Session Court to consider the cross-examination of PW-10 and the suppression of the affidavits by the prosecution. These highly relevant aspects have been completely overlooked by the High Court”, it said. The Bench further noted that the failure to recover the weapons of offence also became relevant in the background of these circumstances.
Thus, allowing the appeals, the Bench acquitted the appellants.
Cause Title: Sakhawat and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 777)
Appearance:
Appellant:AOR Vikrant Singh Bais
Respondent: Sr. Additional Advocate General K Parmeshwar, AOR Sudeep Kumar, Advocate Manisha
