The Supreme Court acquitted the accused after finding serious flaws in the investigation, including delayed FIR registration and failure to examine a key informant witness.
The Court acquitted the accused after finding serious defects in the investigation, delay in FIR registration and doubtful eyewitness evidence.
Supreme Court Criticises Assam Police Investigation
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 28, criticised the Assam Police for a defective investigation in a murder case from Goalpara district.
The Court said the flawed probe led to the wrongful conviction of 16 accused persons.
It described the investigation as a “scripted investigation” by the State Police.
Court Warns Against Scripted Enquiries
At the outset, the Court warned that both poor investigation and scripted enquiry can destroy a criminal prosecution.
“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.
Bench Advises State To Train Police Officers
A Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice K. Vinod Chandran said the State Government and its Home Department must better equip police officers.
The Court said police officers must receive proper training in criminal investigation procedure.
It noted that the police officer who first reached the spot failed to follow the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
FIR Registered After Two Days
The incident occurred on July 8, 2008, in Assam’s Goalpara district.
The deceased, Abdul Wahab, was travelling on a motorbike with relatives and companions.
According to the prosecution, the group faced an ambush on a public road.
The assailants allegedly stretched a steel wire across the road, causing the riders to fall.
They allegedly threw chilli powder and attacked Wahab with sharp weapons.
Wahab suffered multiple grievous injuries, including severing of his left hand. He died on the spot.
Police Reached Spot But Did Not Register FIR
Police reached the scene the same night after receiving a telephone message.
They recorded the information as a General Diary entry.
They also conducted an inquest and seized certain articles.
However, they did not register an FIR that night.
PW1 lodged the FIR only on July 10, 2008.
He later admitted that he had not witnessed the incident.
Key Informant Not Examined During Trial
PW1 stated that he received information about the incident from one Ashad Ali.
However, the prosecution never examined Ashad Ali during trial.
The Supreme Court said this omission could prove fatal.
The Court noted that PW1 was not an eyewitness. Therefore, the prosecution should have examined the person who informed him about the offence.
16 Persons Charge-Sheeted
On the basis of the FIR, police charge-sheeted 16 persons.
The trial court convicted 12 of them.
Later, the High Court upheld the convictions.
The accused then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Finds Prosecution Case Weak
Justice K. Vinod Chandran authored the judgment allowing the appeals.
The Court held that the manner of FIR registration seriously weakened the prosecution case.
It found that police failed to register the FIR despite reaching the spot on the same night.
Instead, the FIR came two days later, based on the statement of PW1, who had not seen the incident.
Court Notes Missing Link In FIR
The Supreme Court noted that PW1 clearly stated he did not witness the assault.
He said Ashad Ali had informed him about the attack on Wahab and the injuries suffered by Omar, PW14, who was the deceased’s son-in-law.
However, Ashad Ali did not appear before the Court.
“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.
The Court further said, “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…”
Eyewitness Version Found Doubtful
The Supreme Court also found serious gaps in the alleged eyewitness version.
The prosecution claimed that some eyewitnesses travelled with the deceased on motorbikes.
However, the Court noted that the eyewitnesses could not identify the assailants.
It also found their presence at the place of occurrence highly doubtful.
The prosecution failed to establish any reliable link to show that five close relatives had travelled with the deceased on four bikes.
Conviction Found Unsustainable
The Court observed that the alleged presence of eyewitnesses itself appeared doubtful.
It said that, if eyewitnesses were present, they would have immediately disclosed the names of the assailants from the same village.
The Court found credible evidence only on one point: Wahab had suffered a brutal attack and grievous injuries, including severing of his left hand at the wrist.
However, the Court held that the prosecution failed to produce credible evidence linking the accused to the crime.
Appeals Allowed, Accused Acquitted
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution case did not inspire confidence.
It held that the evidence could not sustain the convictions.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeals and acquitted the appellants.
