The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of multiple accused in a 2008 murder case from Assam, pointing to serious flaws in the investigation and gaps in evidence. The Court emphasized that defective investigation can lead to grave injustice, especially when innocent persons may be implicated.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an incident on July 8, 2008, where a man was allegedly attacked and killed on a rural road in Goalpara district. According to the prosecution, the victim was travelling with others on motorbikes when they were stopped using a steel wire stretched across the road. A group of assailants then allegedly attacked him with sharp weapons, resulting in fatal injuries.
Initially, 16 persons were charge-sheeted. The trial court convicted 12 of them under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including murder and attempt to murder. The High Court later upheld most of these convictions.
The appeals before the Supreme Court raised concerns about:
- Delay in registering the First Information Report (FIR)
- Reliability of eyewitness testimonies
- Lack of medical and forensic evidence
- Procedural lapses during investigation
Senior counsel for the accused argued that the FIR was lodged after three days, raising suspicion of deliberation. They also pointed out inconsistencies in witness statements and absence of proper forensic examination.
The bench, led by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, made strong observations on the quality of investigation.
“The delay in registering the FIR, especially when the informant was not an eyewitness, creates serious doubts about the prosecution story,” the Court noted.
The Court found that although police reached the scene promptly based on a general diary (GD) entry, they failed to record statements of available witnesses or register an FIR immediately.
On eyewitnesses, the Court observed:
“The presence of eyewitnesses at the place of occurrence itself becomes doubtful when their injuries are not proved and their statements are inconsistent.”
The Court also highlighted that alleged injured witnesses had no medical records to support their claims. Weapons seized were neither sent for forensic analysis nor properly linked to the crime.
Further, the Court questioned the prosecution’s narrative about the victims travelling on motorbikes, noting that no documentary proof of ownership or use of the vehicles was produced.
The judgment sharply criticized the investigation process:
- No immediate FIR despite police reaching the spot
- Failure to record statements of eyewitnesses present
- No medical evidence of injuries to key witnesses
- No forensic examination of seized weapons
- Doubtful seizure records and missing documentation
The Court remarked,
“Be it ignorance, inefficiency or malicious motivation, the investigation failed to follow due procedure.”
Concluding that the prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted all the accused.
“The evidence on record does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction,” the bench held,
ordering cancellation of bail bonds and closure of pending applications.
case details
Case Title: Sadek Ali @ Md. Sadek Ali and Another vs The State of Assam and Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 558 of 2021 (along with connected appeals: 850/2021, 1264/2021, 1428/2021, 1096/2021, 852/2022, 266/2023, and SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 46790 of 2024)
Judges: Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Decision Date: April 28, 2026
