Case Name: Sadek Ali @ Md. Sadek Ali and Anr. Versus The State of Assam and Anr.
Petition Number: Criminal Appeal No.558 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No.850 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No.1264 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No.1428 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No.1096 of 2021, Criminal Appeal No.852 of 2022, Criminal Appeal No.266 of 2023, Diary No.46790 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 421
Date of Judgement: 28.04.2026
Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR & HON’BLE MR JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN
INTRODUCTION
The appeals were filed by the convicted accused challenging a judgment of the High Court, which had confirmed the Trial Court’s decision convicting them of murder and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court evaluated the lethal consequences of an inept or scripted police investigation, focusing on the effects of an unexplained delay in registering the First Information Report (FIR), the failure to conduct forensic analysis, and the severe unreliability of alleged “injured” eyewitnesses whose injuries were never medically proven.
FACTS
In 2008, the deceased and his five close relatives (eyewitnesses) were allegedly returning from a market on four motorbikes. According to the prosecution, they were waylaid at a lonely spot using a thick steel wire tied across the road. Following their fall, a sudden attack was launched by the accused on the deceased, who was first blinded by throwing chilli powder in his eyes. The deceased was brutally murdered, suffering multiple severe cut injuries, including the severing of his left hand at the wrist.
The police arrived at the place of occurrence immediately based on a General Diary (GD) entry made. However, an FIR was not registered until two days later, based on a written complaint by PW1, a person who did not even witness the incident but named 13 specific accused and 10 to 12 unnamed individuals. The Trial Court convicted 12 of the accused. The High Court upheld the convictions for 11 of them, reasoning that the initial GD entry could be treated as the actual FIR, thereby dismissing the defence’s arguments regarding the delayed FIR and investigative flaws.
ISSUE
Whether a conviction can safely rely on the testimonies of related eyewitnesses when their alleged injuries and very presence at the scene are entirely unsubstantiated by medical or material evidence?
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
The Appellants argued that the FIR was registered after a delay of multiple days, allowing for due deliberation and false implication of the accused. They contended that the eyewitnesses were wholly unreliable and inconsistent. The deposition on the alleged overt acts is inconsistent, the injuries were not correlated with the weapons used, and did not align with the post-mortem findings. Furthermore, they emphasised that the investigation was deeply flawed: no recovery of weapons; seized weapons were never sent for forensic analysis, seized motorbikes were never produced in court, and there was absolutely no medical proof regarding the injuries allegedly suffered by the “injured” eyewitnesses.
The Respondent vehemently supported the concurrent findings of the lower courts, arguing that the five eyewitnesses remained unshaken during cross-examination. The State contended that the GD entry was rightfully considered the first information, and that the brutal homicidal death was fully corroborated by the postmortem report, which matched the eyewitness accounts of the attack.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeals and acquitted all the appellants, severely criticising the lower courts’ appreciation of the evidence and the police’s investigative procedures. The Court fundamentally rejected the High Court’s finding that the GD entry was the FIR, noting that neither the informant who called the police nor the officer who recorded the entry was examined in court. The Court observed that the Investigating Officer reached the scene immediately but failed to register an FIR then and there. The two-day delay in lodging the FIR by a non-eyewitness (PW1) clearly pointed to due deliberation and cast heavy suspicion on the entire array of accused.
Crucially, the Court discredited the “injured eyewitnesses.” While an injured eyewitness normally holds a higher degree of credibility, the prosecution failed to produce any wound certificates or medical records from the hospitals where these witnesses were allegedly treated. This complete lack of medical proof not only stripped them of their enhanced credibility but made their very presence at the scene highly doubtful. The Court further highlighted massive investigative failures: despite the prosecution’s claim that six people travelled on four motorbikes, no ownership documents were proved, and the bikes were never produced in court to confront the witnesses. Additionally, the police failed to collect blood samples from the spot, and the seized weapons were never sent for forensic analysis to link them to the crime.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution’s case was entirely unreliable due to glaring procedural and evidentiary failures. The Court held that an inept investigation or a scripted enquiry is fatal to a criminal prosecution, as it carries the lethal consequence of potentially crucifying totally innocent persons. Admonishing the investigating authorities for failing to follow due procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court acquitted all the appellants, cancelled their bail bonds, and advised the State’s Home Department to better equip and educate its police officers in conducting criminal investigations.
