-
by Admin
29 April 2026 9:54 AM
"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," Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment dated April 28, 2026, set aside the conviction of 11 persons in a 2008 murder case from Assam, citing a "scripted enquiry" and grave procedural lapses.
A bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Sanjay Kumar observed that a criminal prosecution cannot stand when the investigation is marked by "ignorance, inefficiency or malicious motivation," leading to the incarceration of potentially innocent individuals for long periods.
The case originated from an incident on July 8, 2008, where the deceased and several others were allegedly waylaid on a public road by 16 persons. The prosecution claimed the attackers used a steel wire to trip the motorbikes before launching a brutal assault with cutting weapons, resulting in the victim's death. While the Trial Court convicted 12 individuals (one died during trial), the High Court upheld the conviction of 11, relying primarily on the testimonies of five purported eyewitnesses.
The primary question before the court was whether a General Diary (GD) entry could be treated as a First Information Report (FIR) to save a prosecution from the effects of a three-day delay in filing the actual complaint. The court was also called upon to determine the credibility of "injured eyewitnesses" when the prosecution fails to produce medical evidence of their injuries or substantiate their presence at the crime scene.
Scripted Enquiries Lead To Crucifixion Of Innocents
The Court began its analysis by emphasizing the duty of the investigating agency to be fair and transparent. Justice K. Vinod Chandran, authoring the judgment, noted that both ineptitude and deliberate scripting of an enquiry are fatal to the prosecution. The bench observed that the latter is particularly dangerous as it risks the "crucifixion" of totally innocent persons under the guise of legal process.
GD Entry Cannot Suitably Replace A Proper FIR
The bench rejected the High Court’s finding that a GD entry recorded at 09:15 P.M. on the night of the incident constituted the FIR. The Court noted that neither the informant who called the police station nor the Inspector who recorded the entry was examined as a witness. Furthermore, the Investigating Officer (PW18) did not record any statement from the first informant (PW1) at the spot, despite his presence there shortly after the crime.
"If the police had questioned PW2, who is said to have been available at the spot, PW18 who reached the spot at 9.30 P.M would definitely have registered an FIR on his return to the Police Station."
Delayed FIR Suggests Due Deliberation and Scripting
The Court found the three-day delay in registering the FIR highly suspect, especially since the written complaint (FIS) named 13 individuals and mentioned 10-12 others. The bench observed that PW1, who filed the complaint, was not an eyewitness, and his information reportedly came from an individual who was never examined in court. This suggested that the array of accused was finalized after "due deliberation," rather than immediate identification.
Presence Of Related Eyewitnesses Found Highly Improbable
While acknowledging that related witnesses are not necessarily "interested" witnesses, the Court held that their presence together on a public road could not be presumed natural in this specific context. The prosecution claimed six people were traveling on four bikes, yet no documents were produced to prove the ownership of these vehicles, nor were the bikes produced before the trial court to confront the witnesses.
"The very story of six people having proceeded on four bikes stand effaced by reason of no worthy evidence having been produced to substantiate the same: putting the eyewitnesses’ testimonies under grave suspicion."
Failure To Prove Injuries Of 'Injured Witnesses' Destroys Credibility
The Court scrutinized the claims of PW6 and PW14, who were projected as injured eyewitnesses. It noted that while an injured witness usually carries higher credibility, this only applies if the injuries are proved to have been sustained in the same transaction. In this case, no wound certificates were produced from the hospitals where they were allegedly treated, and the Investigating Officer’s testimony regarding their examination was inconsistent.
"When the prosecution fails to prove the very injuries projected as sustained in the same transaction, not only are we unable to concede a greater credibility... but it also makes doubtful their very presence in the P.O."
Gross Negligence In Handling Material Evidence
The bench expressed dismay over the handling of physical evidence. The weapons seized were never sent for forensic analysis, nor were they shown to the eyewitnesses or the doctor who performed the post-mortem. Additionally, no attempt was made to collect blood samples from the place of occurrence to match them with the deceased or the injured, further weakening the forensic link between the accused and the crime.
"The weapons seized were neither sent for forensic analysis, nor were they confronted to the eyewitnesses or the Doctor who conducted the postmortem."
Call For Better Training Of Investigating Officers
Concluding the judgment, the Court remarked that the failure of the police to follow due procedure under the CrPC had left a brutal crime unresolved while causing 16 persons to suffer incarceration. The bench urged the State's Department of Home to better equip and educate its officers in the fundamental protocols of criminal investigation to prevent such "scripted" failures in the future.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions, and acquitted all the appellants. The bench ordered the immediate cancellation of their bail bonds and directed their release if not required in any other case.
Date of Decision: April 28, 2026
