The Supreme Court acquitted the appellants, setting aside their conviction under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, due to serious doubts about the prosecution’s case. The investigation was deemed unfair because the investigating officer suppressed affidavits from three eyewitnesses (PW-5, PW-6, PW-7) that favored the accused, and failed to conduct further investigation based on these affidavits. The Court found it unsafe to convict solely on PW-4’s testimony given the suppressed material.
Facts Of The Case:
Sakhawat and Mehndi, appellant nos. 1 and 2 respectively, appealed a judgment from the High Court of Allahabad dated October 9, 2018, which upheld their conviction for offenses under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment.The First Information Report (FIR) was registered on May 5, 1981, against Abrar (accused no. 1), Sakhawat (appellant no. 1/accused no. 2), and Mehndi (appellant no. 2/accused no. 3). The prosecution alleged that on the night of May 4/5, 1981, PW-4 (Amir Hussain) was sleeping under a Babool tree, and the deceased (Sukha) was in his hut. PW-4 awoke at 2 a.m. to a gunshot. PW-5 (Allah Baksh) and PW-6 (Mohd. Hanif) also arrived after hearing a voice from Sukha’s hut and another gunshot. They saw appellant no. 1 with a country-made pistol, appellant no. 2 with a knife, and accused no. 1 with a danda. The accused allegedly scuffled with the deceased and PW-7 (Nanhi), who were believed to be in an illicit relationship. Appellant no. 2 inflicted a knife injury on PW-7’s neck. The accused fled, and the deceased was found injured near his hut, later succumbing to his injuries.On October 16, 1982, the Trial Court convicted appellant nos. 1 and 2, imposing life imprisonment, but acquitted accused no. 1 as no danda-related injuries were found. The High Court confirmed this judgment. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses, including eyewitnesses PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6. PW-7, an injured witness, was declared hostile, claiming PW-4 and Abrar shot the deceased and wounded her. Defence witnesses, including DW-1, DW-2, DW-3, and DW-4, testified about affidavits filed by PW-5 and PW-6 in favor of the accused during bail proceedings, denying their involvement. The Investigating Officer, PW-10, admitted receiving copies of these affidavits, including PW-7’s affidavit stating PW-4 and Akbar were the assailants, but did not file a counter-affidavit
Procedural History:
This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment dated October 9, 2018, of the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court’s impugned judgment upheld the conviction of appellant nos. 1 and 2 for offenses punishable under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Both appellants were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.Previously, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered on May 5, 1981, against accused no. 1 (Abrar), appellant no. 1/accused no. 2 (Sakhawat), and appellant no. 2/accused no. 3 (Mehndi). On October 16, 1982, the Trial Court convicted appellant no. 1 and appellant no. 2 for the alleged offenses, imposing a sentence of life imprisonment. The Trial Court acquitted accused no. 1. The present appellants (accused nos. 2 and 3) had preferred an appeal before the High Court, which subsequently confirmed the Trial Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court, in this judgment dated May 23, 2025, considered the appeal and ultimately set aside the impugned judgments and orders, acquitting the appellants.
READ ALSO :Sand Mining Case: Supreme Court Explains State’s Power to Fix DMF Charges for Minor Minerals
Court Observation:
The Court meticulously examined witness testimonies, noting that PW-4, the informant, detailed the incident and identified appellants with weapons. While PW-4 mentioned an illicit relationship between the deceased and PW-7, he admitted it was common village talk, not personally observed. PW-5 and PW-6, eyewitnesses, corroborated hearing gunshots and seeing the accused with weapons clinging to PW-7. Crucially, the Court observed that PW-5 and PW-6 denied executing affidavits favouring the accused, despite defence witnesses proving their existence. PW-7, declared hostile, even implicated PW-4 as an assailant. The Court found that the Investigating Officer admitted to receiving these affidavits but failed to conduct further investigation or file counter-affidavits, citing an unconvincing excuse of untraceable witnesses. This suppression of material evidence and failure to fairly investigate created serious doubt about the prosecution’s case and the truthfulness of the witnesses’ testimonies
Final Decision & Judgement:
The appeal was successful. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and orders concerning the appellants. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted of the offenses alleged against them, and their bail bonds were cancelled. The Court highlighted that the High Court and Sessions Court failed to consider the cross-examination of PW-10 and the prosecution’s suppression of affidavits, which were highly relevant aspects completely overlooked. This failure to conduct a fair investigation and the suppression of important material created serious doubt about the truthfulness of the versions of PW-5 to PW-7, making it unsafe to convict the appellants solely on the testimony of PW-4
Case Details:
Case Title: Sakhawat and Anr. versus State of Uttar Pradesh Citation: 2025 INSC 777 Criminal Appeal No.: 4571 of 2024 Date of Judgment: May 23, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih
Download The Judgement Here