LexSAKHAWAT AND ANR. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 139 : 2025 INSC 777 Sakhawat and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 4571 of 2024) 23 May 2025 [Abhay S. Oka* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants under various sections of Penal Code, 1860, when the prosecution failed to conduct fair investigation and had suppressed affidavits of the eyewitnesses. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.34, 302, 307 – Murder – Failure to carry fair investigation – Appellants-accused convicted for murder of deceased and sentenced to life imprisonment whereas acquittal of accused no.1 – Bail applications by appellants – Sessions court relied on the affidavits of two eye-witnesses and granted bail – High Court upheld the order of the trial court – Correctness: Held: Three out of four eyewitnesses admittedly filed the affidavits during the bail hearing of the accused, stating that the accused not involved – Investigating Officer did not controvert the affidavits by filing a counter-affidavit, though time was granted to him – Thus, by failing to carry out further investigation on the basis of affidavits, the prosecution failed to carry out a fair investigation – Moreover, prosecution tried to suppress the affidavits – Serious doubt created about the truthfulness of the versions of three prosecution witnesses-eye witnesses before the Court – As the prosecution did not conduct a fair investigation and suppressed important material in the form of affidavits of the prosecution witnesses-eye witnesses, unsafe to convict the appellants only on the basis of the testimony of the informant – Failure to conduct further investigation * Author 140 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports based on the affidavits goes to the root of the matter – Failure to recover the weapons of offence also relevant – Failure on the part of the High Court and the Session Court to consider the cross-examination of Investigating Officer and the suppression of the affidavits by the prosecution – High Court overlooked these highly relevant aspects – Thus, the impugned judgment set aside and the appellants acquitted of the offences alleged against them. [Paras 20-24, 26] Practice and procedure – Record of trial court not to be referred as “lower court record” – Reiteration of the direction issued by this Court – Describing any Court as a “Lower Court” against the ethos of our Constitution – High Courts to take note of the said direction and act upon the same. [Para 25] List of Acts Constitution of India; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Murder; Life imprisonment; Injured witness; Material prosecution witnesses; Fair trial; Affidavits in favour of accused; Supplementary statements of witnesses; Counter-affidavit; Failure to carry out fair investigation; Suppression of important material; Failure to recover weapons; Lower court; Lower court record; Ethos of Constitution. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 4571 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.10.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLA No. 2670 of 1982 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Manoj Prasad, Sr. Adv., Vikrant Singh Bais. Advs. for the Respondents: K Parameshwar, Sr. A.A.G., Sudeep Kumar, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Manisha, Ms. Rupali. [2025] 7 S.C.R. 141 Sakhawat and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Abhay S. Oka, J. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 9th October, 2018 of the High Court of Allahabad. The impugned judgment upheld the conviction of the appellant nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’). Both of them were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. 2. First Information Report (for short, ‘the FIR’) dated 5th May, 1981 was registered against the accused no. 1 (Abrar), appellant no. 1/accused no. 2 (Sakhawat) and appellant no. 2/accused no. 3 (Mehndi) for the aforementioned offences. The case of the prosecution is that PW-4 (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, PW-4 (Amir Hussain) woke up at 2 a.m. to the sound of a firearm being shot. PW-5 (Allah Baksh) and PW-6 (Mohd. Hanif)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.