A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case Sakhawat and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh dealt with the conviction of two appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Trial Court and the Allahabad High Court had convicted them based on the testimony of prosecution witnesses, sentencing them to life imprisonment. However, during the bail proceedings, crucial affidavits filed by three eyewitnesses, including the injured witness, exonerated the accused. The prosecution neither investigated these affidavits nor produced counter-affidavits despite being granted time. Instead, the affidavits were suppressed. The Supreme Court held that the suppression of such critical material evidence, the failure to conduct further investigation, the doubtful conduct of the Investigating Officer, and the inconsistencies among witnesses undermined the prosecution’s case. Since fair investigation is intrinsic to Article 21 of the Constitution, and conviction cannot be sustained solely on the testimony of a single interested witness amidst contradictory evidence, the Court acquitted the appellants. The Court also reiterated that records should not describe the trial court as a “lower court,” as it offends constitutional ethos.

Keywords: Murder, Life imprisonment, Eyewitness affidavits, Fair trial, Suppression of material evidence, Article 21, Cross-examination of Investigating Officer, Failure of investigation, Lower court record, Acquittal.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The present appeal arose from the conviction of two appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC. The prosecution case alleged that the accused killed one Sukha and injured PW-7 Nanhi due to her illicit relationship with the deceased. The Trial Court in 1982 convicted the appellants while acquitting one co-accused. The High Court in 2018 affirmed the conviction. The appeal before the Supreme Court raised questions on the fairness of investigation, suppression of evidence, and reliability of prosecution witnesses.

The central issue revolved around affidavits filed by key eyewitnesses during bail hearings, where they absolved the accused of involvement and implicated others, including the complainant. These affidavits, acknowledged by the Investigating Officer in cross-examination, were neither investigated further nor rebutted through counter-affidavits. Instead, they were concealed from trial proceedings. The failure to probe such material evidence cast serious doubt on the prosecution case.

The Supreme Court, while invoking the constitutional guarantee of fair trial under Article 21, emphasized that investigation must be fair, unbiased, and aimed at discovering the truth. A conviction resting on tainted investigation and suppression of exculpatory evidence would amount to a miscarriage of justice. The Court also addressed procedural lapses, such as the absence of weapon recovery and contradictions among prosecution witnesses. This judgment demonstrates the Court’s insistence on protecting the rights of the accused against flawed investigation and prosecutorial suppression, reinforcing the rule of law and fair trial principles in criminal jurisprudence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The incident occurred on the intervening night of 4th and 5th May 1981 in Rampur, Uttar Pradesh. The deceased Sukha was sleeping in his hut, while the informant PW-4 Amir Hussain was resting under a nearby Babool tree. Around 2 a.m., gunshots were heard. PW-4, along with PW-5 Allah Baksh and PW-6 Mohd. Hanif, rushed towards the hut. They claimed to have seen appellant no. 1 armed with a country-made pistol, appellant no. 2 with a knife, and accused no. 1 with a danda. Sukha was allegedly attacked, and PW-7 Nanhi sustained gunshot and knife injuries. Sukha later succumbed to his injuries.

The FIR was lodged at 6:30 a.m., raising questions over delay. Medical evidence confirmed firearm injury on the deceased and multiple wounds on PW-7. The Trial Court convicted the appellants but acquitted accused no. 1 since no injury attributable to a danda was found.

During bail proceedings, PW-5, PW-6, and PW-7 submitted affidavits exonerating the appellants and implicating PW-4 and another individual. These affidavits were admitted by the Investigating Officer in cross-examination. However, he failed to investigate or record supplementary statements. Instead, the prosecution suppressed these documents.

Despite defence witnesses proving the affidavits, the Trial Court and High Court overlooked their significance. The conviction was primarily based on the testimony of PW-4, who himself was implicated in PW-7’s affidavit. No weapon was recovered, and forensic evidence was absent. The inconsistency in witness testimonies, coupled with procedural lapses, formed the core of the appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC could be sustained in light of suppressed affidavits by key prosecution witnesses?
ii. Whether failure of the Investigating Officer to conduct further investigation on the affidavits amounted to denial of fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution?
iii. Whether reliance on the sole testimony of PW-4, who was implicated in affidavits, was safe for conviction?
iv. Whether delay in lodging FIR, absence of weapon recovery, and contradictions in prosecution evidence created reasonable doubt in the case?
v. Whether suppression of crucial defence-favouring material vitiated the trial?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellants argued that the prosecution case was riddled with inconsistencies and suppression of material evidence. They highlighted that PW-5 and PW-6, the alleged eyewitnesses, had sworn affidavits in bail proceedings absolving the appellants. PW-7, the injured witness, also deposed in her affidavit that PW-4 and another individual were the real assailants. Despite this, the Investigating Officer did not conduct supplementary investigation or file counter-affidavits. Instead, these affidavits were deliberately suppressed.

They contended that reliance solely on PW-4’s testimony, who was himself implicated, was unsafe. The FIR delay, absence of recovery of weapons, and contradictions between PW-5 and PW-6 further weakened the prosecution case. The defence argued that PW-5 admitted to being detained in police custody for 24 hours, raising suspicion about the voluntariness of his testimony. Furthermore, the forensic science laboratory report was missing. The appellants asserted that such investigation violated the mandate of fair trial under Article 21.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State countered by asserting that the evidence of PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6 consistently implicated the appellants. It argued that affidavits filed during bail proceedings lacked evidentiary value and were retracted by the witnesses during trial. The State emphasized that medical evidence corroborated prosecution testimonies. It further contended that since the Trial Court and High Court had concurrently appreciated the evidence and found no material contradictions, the conviction should not be disturbed. The prosecution relied on the credibility of the eyewitnesses and argued that the defence evidence lacked probative force compared to sworn trial testimonies.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder.
ii. Section 307 IPC – Attempt to murder.
iii. Section 34 IPC – Common intention.
iv. Article 21, Constitution of India – Right to life and personal liberty; includes fair trial.
v. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Provisions for investigation, recording of witness statements, and supplementary investigation.

I) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution’s suppression of affidavits and failure to conduct further investigation undermined the fairness of trial. The Court emphasized that the affidavits of PW-5, PW-6, and PW-7 exonerated the accused and implicated others. The Investigating Officer’s admission that he neither filed counter-affidavits nor pursued further investigation revealed gross negligence. This failure violated the constitutional mandate of fair investigation under Article 21.

The Court held that conviction based solely on PW-4’s testimony, especially when contradicted by affidavits, was unsafe. The absence of recovery of weapons, delay in FIR, and contradictions in witness statements further weakened the prosecution. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio decidendi is that conviction cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to conduct fair investigation, suppresses exculpatory evidence, and relies solely on the testimony of one witness amidst contradictions. Article 21 guarantees not only fair trial but also fair investigation. Suppression of witness affidavits exonerating the accused strikes at the root of justice.

b. OBITER DICTA

The Court reiterated that judicial records must not describe trial courts as “lower courts” since such terminology is inconsistent with constitutional ethos. All courts are integral to the judicial system, and hierarchical superiority must not translate into derogatory terminology.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Investigating Officers must conduct supplementary investigation when new material such as affidavits emerges.
ii. Failure to file counter-affidavits or record further statements of witnesses constitutes denial of fair investigation.
iii. Suppression of material favourable to the accused amounts to violation of Article 21.
iv. Courts must scrutinize suppression of evidence and procedural lapses strictly, as they vitiate the trial.
v. Trial Court records should never be referred to as “Lower Court Records.” High Courts must implement this directive in spirit.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces the principle that justice cannot rest upon half-truths and suppression of material evidence. The Supreme Court underscored that the right to life and liberty under Article 21 includes a duty upon the State to ensure fair investigation. By acquitting the appellants, the Court highlighted that convictions cannot be secured on the testimony of one interested witness, especially when other eyewitnesses contradict the prosecution through affidavits.

This case serves as a reminder that procedural safeguards in criminal law are not technicalities but essential pillars of justice. Suppression of defence-favouring material, non-recovery of weapons, and perfunctory cross-examination collectively erode confidence in prosecution cases. By stressing constitutional ethos in judicial language and reiterating fairness in investigation, the Court has set a precedent strengthening both substantive and procedural criminal law.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:
i. Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1.
ii. Pooja Pal v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 135.
iii. Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254.
iv. Mohd. Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 9 SCC 408.

b. Important Statutes Referred:
i. Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 34, 302, 307.
ii. Constitution of India – Article 21.
iii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.