'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence

"The case is not of a faulty investigation but of no investigation having been carried out." Supreme Court, in a judgment dated September 1, 2026, has acquitted five accused persons in a murder case, sharply criticizing the investigating agency for a complete failure to collect foundational evidence.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the prosecution’s case was built upon a "shoddy" investigation that lacked any material evidence to support the eyewitness accounts, declaring that "a faulty investigation cannot inure to the benefit of the accused, but when there is no reliable evidence, the Court cannot presume the guilt of the accused."

Failure to secure the crime scene

The prosecution alleged that the accused ambushed the deceased and fired indiscriminately on an election day. However, the Court noted with concern that despite the claim of multiple gunshots, no cartridges were recovered from the scene, nor were the weapons of the accused seized. The bench further highlighted that blood-stained earth collected from the site was never sent for chemical analysis, and the clothes of the deceased or the witnesses were never seized, leaving the prosecution's narrative unsupported by forensic science.

Eyewitness testimonies under scrutiny

The Court expressed deep skepticism regarding the eyewitness testimonies, noting that they were "all related witnesses" and their presence at the scene was highly doubtful. It was observed that these witnesses had a pre-existing dispute with the accused, which provided a motive to frame them. The bench emphasized that the eyewitnesses' accounts regarding the trajectory of the firing and the position of the deceased were directly contradicted by expert medical opinion, which indicated the victim was in a sitting position when shot from close range.

Inquest before FIR raised suspicion

The Court also took strong exception to the procedural lapses in the investigation. It was discovered that the inquest, a critical preliminary step, was carried out before the First Information Statement (FIS) was recorded. The bench termed this a "pre-meditated" act, casting serious doubt on the integrity of the entire police process. The Court held that the lower court had "egregiously erred" by relying on an external complaint against the Investigating Officer to justify the lack of evidence in the trial.

Expert evidence versus oral testimony

The Court observed that the expert medical evidence provided by the doctor, which detailed the nature of the bullet entry and exit wounds, stood in direct contrast to the version of the incident presented by the witnesses. The bench noted that the High Court had improperly brushed aside these medical inconsistencies with mere conjectures, failing to address the fundamental gaps in the prosecution's version of how the murder occurred.

No room for presumption of guilt

The Supreme Court clarified that while a flawed investigation might not always entitle an accused to an acquittal, the complete absence of reliable evidence makes a conviction impossible. The bench concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the culpability of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, acquitted the accused of all charges under the IPC and the Arms Act, and ordered their immediate release, directing that their bail bonds be cancelled.

Date of Decision: 01 September 2026