Prosecution Suppressed Crucial Evidence - Failure to Conduct Fair Investigation Vitiates Entire Case: Supreme Court Acquits Life Convicts

“The prosecution has failed to carry out a fair investigation… suppression of vital affidavits and lack of follow-up probe goes to the root of the matter.” -  Supreme Court of India delivered a consequential ruling that overturned the life convictions of two accused individuals in a 1981 double offence case. Emphasizing the necessity of a fair investigation under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court found that the prosecution's failure to properly investigate and consider critical affidavits submitted by key prosecution witnesses irreparably tainted the trial process. The Court categorically held that the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC could not stand.

The case dated back to a brutal incident on the intervening night of May 4/5, 1981, when one Sukha was found murdered and a woman (PW-7) allegedly in an illicit relationship with him, was injured. The First Information Report (FIR) named three accused—Abrar, Sakhawat (appellant no. 1), and Mehndi (appellant no. 2)—for murder and attempt to murder. The Trial Court in 1982 convicted the appellants for life under Section 302 and 307 IPC read with Section 34, while acquitting Abrar for lack of evidence.

The High Court of Allahabad in 2018 affirmed the conviction and sentence, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues and Supreme Court’s Observations

The apex court was called upon to decide whether the conviction could be sustained in light of glaring procedural lapses, especially the suppression of material affidavits and failure to conduct follow-up investigation by the police.

The Court criticized the prosecution's conduct and highlighted the inherent duty to conduct an impartial investigation, stating:

“The accused is entitled to a fair trial… Even the Police are under an obligation to carry out a fair investigation… The legal system must ensure that an innocent person is not punished.”

The Court found that three key prosecution witnesses—PW-5, PW-6, and injured witness PW-7—had submitted affidavits during the bail proceedings categorically exonerating the appellants. These affidavits were relied upon by the Sessions Court to grant bail. However, the police failed to investigate the matter further or record supplementary statements, despite being aware of the affidavits.

“By failing to carry out further investigation on the basis of the said affidavits, the prosecution has failed to carry out a fair investigation. Moreover, the prosecution tried to suppress the affidavits.”

The investigating officer (PW-10) admitted in cross-examination that he received the affidavits and did not pursue further verification, nor did he file a counter-affidavit. He made no case diary entry regarding efforts to trace witnesses or follow legal procedure to secure their cooperation.

Additionally, the testimony of PW-4, the lone eyewitness who implicated the appellants, stood severely weakened due to contradictory statements and the failure of the prosecution to recover weapons or produce forensic evidence:

“It is unsafe to convict the appellants only on the basis of the testimony of PW-4.”

The Court concluded that the Sessions Court and High Court had completely ignored this critical lapse, including the suppression of evidence and inadequate cross-examination of material witnesses.

In setting aside the convictions, the Court firmly held: “There is something very crucial that the High Court and the Sessions Court have missed… The failure to conduct further investigation based on the affidavits goes to the root of the matter.”

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih, also reiterated its directive that lower courts should not be referred to as such, stating: “Describing any Court as a ‘Lower Court’ is against the ethos of our Constitution.”

The appellants were acquitted of all charges, and their bail bonds were cancelled.

This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s insistence on procedural fairness and constitutional guarantees under Article 21. It reiterates that a conviction based on suppressed evidence and flawed investigation cannot be allowed to stand. The case serves as a stern reminder to investigating authorities of their constitutional and statutory duties to uphold justice without prejudice or omission.

Date of Decision: May 23, 2025