Supreme Court Criticises Assam Police For Faulty Probe Leading To Acquittals In Murder Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 28) criticized the Assam Police for undertaking a flawed investigation in a Murder case, which led to the wrongful conviction of 16 accused persons due to the 'scripted investigation' by the State Police. The Court advised the State Government to equip and educate its police officers involved in the investigation of the due procedure.

"An inept investigation or a scripted enquiry, both are fatal to criminal prosecution; but the latter has lethal consequences when there is a possibility of totally innocent persons being crucified," the Court observed at the outset.

The Court noted that although the police reached the scene of the incident, they failed to follow due procedure by delaying the registration of the FIR by two days. The FIR was eventually lodged by a complainant who was not an eyewitness, based on information provided by another person who was never examined during the trial.

The failure to examine the person who informed the complainant about the offence, especially when the complainant is not an eyewitness, can prove fatal to the prosecution's case, the court said.

“It is unfortunate that PW18, the police officer who reached the spot immediately after the incident took place, on the basis of an information over telephone, failed to follow due procedure to put the criminal investigation in motion as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Be it ignorance, inefficiency or malicious motivation, the crime is left unresolved and considerable time and money has been spent in the prosecution of 16 persons, some of whom died during trial and the others suffered incarceration for long periods. The State and its Department of Home would do well to better equip their officers in investigating crimes and educating them of due procedure.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K Vinod Chandran.

The case arose from a brutal attack on July 8, 2008, in Assam's Goalpara district. The deceased, Abdul Wahab, was travelling on a motorbike along with relatives and companions when the group was allegedly ambushed on a public road.

According to the prosecution, a steel wire was stretched across the road, causing the riders to fall, the assailants allegedly threw chilli powder and attacked Wahab with sharp weapons, and he suffered multiple grievous injuries, including severing of his left hand, leading to his died on the spot.

The police reached the scene the same night based on a telephone message recorded as a General Diary (GD) entry. An inquest was conducted and certain articles were seized.

However, no FIR was registered that night. Instead, the FIR was lodged two days later (July 10, 2008). It was filed by PW1, who admittedly did not witness the incident. PW1 stated that he received information about the incident from one Ashad Ali, who was never examined during trial.

Based on this FIR, 16 persons were charge-sheeted, out of whom 12 were convicted by the trial court, and whose convictions were upheld by the High Court, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran observed that the prosecution's case was fundamentally weakened by the manner in which the FIR was lodged.

Instead of registering the FIR at the spot upon reaching the scene of the incident, the police chose to lodge it later on the basis of PW1's account, even though he was not an eyewitness to the incident. Moreover, the person who had informed PW1, whose information formed the very basis of the FIR, was never examined by the prosecution, a lapse the Court found to be a serious flaw in its case.

“It is pertinent that PW1 categorically stated in his deposition that he did not witness the incident and that it was one Ashad Ali who spoke of the assault made by the accused leading to the death of his nephew, Wahab and injuries sustained on Omar; PW14, the son-in-law of the deceased. Ashad Ali was not examined before Court.”, the court noted.

“Though the police moved to the spot on the basis of a GD entry, there was no FIR registered for two days, waiting for PW1 to make a complaint…”, the court added.

Further, another lacuna highlighted by the Court was about the presence of the eyewitness at the place of incident who were claimed to have been travelled with the deceased on bikes, and their inability to identify the assailants who attacked the deceased person. The Court also find their presence highly improbable, as no link was established by the prosecution to substantiate the story of the five witnesses, close relatives, having travelled with the deceased on four bikes.

“They spoke of the presence of some of the eyewitnesses which itself is suspect since then the name of the assailants would have been disclosed at that point itself, all of the assailants being of the very same village. But for the deceased having been attacked brutally with grievous injuries inflicted and his left hand severed at the wrist, spoken of by the witnesses who converged on the spot, also evidenced by the inquest and the postmortem report, there is no credible evidence to substantiate the prosecution case.”, the court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court found that the prosecution's case was not inspiring confidence to sustain the conviction of the Appellants, hence the appeals were allowed, resulting in their acquittal.

Cause Title: Sadek Ali @ Md. Sadek Ali and Anr. Versus The State of Assam and Anr. (with connected appeals)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 435

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mansoor Ali, AOR Ms. Rubina Jawed, Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Shuktiz Sinha, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmed, Adv. Mr. F. I. Choudhury, AOR Mr. David Choudhury, Adv. Mr. Avijit Roy, AOR Mr Naresh Kumar, AOR Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Kishor Choudhary, AOR Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Adv. Ms. Pratibha Singh, Adv. Mr. Vikram Patralekh, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Shivam Yadav, Adv. Ms. Shalini Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Vineet Jindal, Adv. Mr. Syed Faizan Ali, Adv. Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Chinmoy Sharma, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv. Ms. Purvat Wali, Adv. Ms. Sagun Srivastva, Adv. Mr. Irfan Hasieb, Adv. Mr. Vijay Deora, Adv. Mr. Aditya Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Debojit Borkakati, AOR