Sadek Ali @ Md. Sadek Ali vs The State Of Assam

2026 INSC 421 Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.558 of 2021

Sadek Ali @ Md. Sadek Ali and Anr. ...Appellants Versus

The State of Assam and Anr. ...Respondents With 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

Criminal Appeal No…..…… of 2026 (@SLP (Crl.) No………….of 2026 @ Diary No.46790 of 2024)

JUDGMENT

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

An inept investigation or a scripted enquiry, both are

fatal to criminal prosecution; but the latter has lethal Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2026.04.28 consequences when there is a possibility of totally innocent 13:33:08 IST Reason:

persons being crucified. In the present case 16 persons

were charge-sheeted as accused, of which one died during Page 1 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. the trial. Out of the remaining, 12 were convicted and

sentenced under Sections 147, 341, 326, 307, 323 and 302

read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601.

Eighteen witnesses were examined before the trial court, of

which six were eyewitnesses: one disbelieved by the trial

court and the High Court. The defense examined two

witnesses and denied their culpability. The appellants are

the convicted accused, two of whom have passed away.

2. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Counsel for

some of the appellants, emphasized that though a GD entry

was made and immediately police went to the place of

occurrence (P.O) the FIR was registered after three days on

the written complaint of PW1 naming all the accused: clearly

making the arraignment after due deliberation. The

investigation was commenced on the GD entry, but the

prosecution is based on the FIR, which was pursuant to

another GD entry. The eyewitnesses are said to be wholly

unreliable, there being inconsistencies in their own

narration and amongst themselves. The deposition

regarding the overt acts is disparate and the injuries were

never compared with the weapons, and they were also

1 For brevity, ‘IPC’ Page 2 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. inconsistent with the post-mortem report. There is no

recovery of weapons and even the seized weapons were

never sent for forensic analysis. There was no proof

regarding the injuries suffered by the so-called injured

witnesses, making their very presence at the P.O doubtful.

The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that no

statements under Section 161, Cr. P.C. were taken from the

witnesses paraded before Court and the statements under

Section 164, Cr. P.C were recorded far later. The learned

Counsel appearing for the other appellants adopted the

arguments raised by the learned Senior Counsel.

3. Mr. Chinmoy Sharma learned Senior AAG appearing

for the respondent-State vehemently argued that there were

five eyewitnesses, believed concurrently by the trial court

and the High Court. The eyewitnesses remained unshaken

in cross-examination. The Investigating Officer (IO-PW18)

spoke of the injury suffered by PW14, one of the injured

eyewitnesses; his statement having been recorded at a

hospital. The investigation had proceeded based on the GD

entry and the High Court correctly found the same to be the

first information. The eyewitnesses who were

accompanying the deceased at the time of the incident had

Page 3 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. run away from the P.O, out of fear for their lives, the

concerted attack having been made by 16 persons carrying

deadly weapons. The other witnesses who came to the P.O

immediately after the attack fully corroborated the

eyewitnesses. The postmortem report indicated the death

having been caused from injuries inflicted by sharp cutting

weapons from different directions some of which were bone

deep and the others impacting vital organs like the brain

and lung. The evidence led at the trial, according to the

learned Senior Counsel, was sufficient to find the accused

guilty of the offences and there is no reason to upset the

findings.

4. The High Court extracted and approved the findings

of the trial court that the witnesses were examined on the

strength of the GD entry, especially PW2 and PW13 who

were eyewitnesses. The trial court found that since such

examination was immediately after the incident, there is no

reason to discard the evidence of other witnesses also, since

otherwise it will send a wrong message. The High Court

found that the attempt of the appellants’ counsel to decry the

investigation on the ground of a delayed FIR falls flat, since

there was already a GD entry recorded in the jurisdictional

Page 4 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. Police Station immediately after the incident which can be

termed as the FIR in the above case thus relegating the

statement leading to the registration of the FIR as one under

Section 161, which would be hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C

since it was signed. The High Court upheld the conviction

and sentence awarded to the 11 accused except that of the

second appellant in Criminal Appeal No.318 of 2017, who

stood acquitted.

5. The prosecution case was that on 08.07.2008, the

deceased along with the five eyewitnesses (PW2, PW7,

PW13, PW14 and PW15) were returning home from Karbala

Bazar on four motor bikes. While they were travelling on the

Gobindapur-Rabhapara PWD road, nearby the house of

accused No.1, a lonely spot, the 4 bikes were waylaid with

a thick steel wire tied across the road. The abrupt braking

of bikes resulted in the riders falling down, when a sudden

attack was launched by the accused on the deceased who

was first blinded by throwing chili powder in his eyes.

Multiple injuries were inflicted on the deceased with cutting

weapons, and his left hand was severed from the wrist. The

eyewitnesses spoke in tandem about the incident, but we

will deal with that a little later.

Page 5 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

6. The police reached the spot based on a GD entry

produced as Annexure P1 in Criminal Appeal No.558 of

2021; the documents from which are referred to herein. An

inquest was carried out at about 9.30 P.M on 08.07.2008

itself, produced as Annexure P2 and seizures effected as

seen from Annexure P3 & P4 from the P.O. Postmortem was

conducted on 09.07.2008; the report produced as Annexure

P6. A written complaint was filed by PW1, produced as

Annexure P8 based on which Annexure P9 FIR was

registered. Annexure P8 named 13 accused, all of whom

were spoken of as residents of Gobindapur. The FIS by PW1

specifically mentioned the presence of 10 to 12 other

accused persons who could be identified on sight.

7. That the victim died from a brutal attack with cutting

weapons is more than clear from the postmortem report,

which speaks of multiple cut injuries on the body of the

deceased; specifically three on the head and face, one on

the right side of the neck, another below the nipple on the

left chest and compound fractures on both the legs. There is

also an injury seen on the frontal part of the forehead, which

fractured the maxilla, mandible and frontal bone. The

hematoma on the frontal lobe of the cerebrum extended to

Page 6 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. the subdural space. The 4th and 5th ribs were fractured, and

the right lung revealed another hematoma on the left side.

The left hand was severed at the wrist. That the death was

homicidal stands established.

8. The GD entry is seen to have been made at 09.15 P.M

on 08.07.2008, on information received over the phone from

the Secretary of VDP, Gobindapur and recorded by the

Inspector in-charge of the Goalpara Police Station, one

Padma Dhar Chutiya. Neither the informant was examined

nor the Inspector who recorded the entry in the general

diary maintained at the Police Station; negating the finding

of the High Court that this entry is the first information

report. The evidence of PW18, the I.O, who was deputed

immediately on the GD entry being made clearly indicates

that he reached the spot on 08.07.2008 at 9.30 P.M, when

PW1 was available at the spot. PW18 conducted an inquest

on the spot and sent the body for postmortem to the hospital.

However, he did not choose to register an FIR on the basis

of the information supplied by PW1, immediately on his

return to the Police Station. PW18 also does not speak of any

names having been disclosed by PW1 who identified the

deceased at the P.O along with PW3, another relative. PW18

Page 7 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. does not speak of the presence of the eyewitnesses at the

P.O.

9. Seizures were made from the spot of a beki dao, lathi,

spike and 4 motor bikes, which is evident from the seizure

list produced as Annexures P3 and P4. Annexure P4, seizure

list not only contained the description of the bikes but also

the name of the persons who travelled in each; who are the

eyewitnesses. The FIR was registered two days later on

10.07.2008 at 11.50 A.M, the FIS leading to which named 13

accused. It is pertinent that while naming the 13 accused in

the complaint produced as Annexure P8, the first informant

also spoke of 10 to 12 other accused persons and

categorically stated: “I don’t know their names, but I will be

able to recognize them at sight”. However, PW1 is not cited

as an eyewitness, and he does not claim to have seen the

incident. The delay in registering the FIR based on the FIS,

which indicated the name of 13 accused is suspect

especially since PW1 does not speak of having witnessed

the incident.

10. We have to pertinently observe that PW1 and the other

eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased. Even if the

five eyewitnesses are found credible; which we are not

Page 8 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. convinced of, there was due deliberation before the FIS was

lodged. The fact that none of the eyewitnesses though it fit

to make a statement before the police further raises the

suspicion regarding the array of accused as stated in the FIS.

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.

11. The High Court termed the GD entry as the FIR based

on which the investigation was commenced especially

noticing that PW2 and PW13 were examined by the police

immediately after the incident. PW2 spoke in tandem with

the prosecution story regarding the attack unleashed on the

deceased by the named accused and spoke of injuries

inflicted on him, one of which led to his left hand being

severed at the wrist. He also spoke of Omar Ali, PW14

having sustained injuries. He did not speak of having fled

from the P.O but categorically stated that when the villagers

gathered the assailants took to their heels and that Abdul

Wahab died on the spot. With respect to the statement

Page 9 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. recorded by the police, he was not sure when he was

questioned. He only confirmed that the police questioned

him and spoke of his statement having been recorded under

Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. 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. PW18

does not speak of the presence of PW2 at the P.O or any

statement having recorded from him. The High Court and

the trial court egregiously erred in finding the investigation

having commenced with the examination of PW2.

12. It is also relevant that PW13 deposed that he was

questioned before the dead body was taken from the P.O,

but PW18 does not corroborate that. Likewise, PW15

another eyewitness, also spoke of having been questioned

at the place of occurrence. The presence of eyewitnesses

PW2, PW13 and PW15 at the P.O when the villagers

gathered there is affirmed by PW3, PW6 and PW8 who

reached the P.O immediately after the incident. But PW18

does not speak of recording a statement from any of them.

When the eyewitnesses were present at the P.O there is no

Page 10 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. explanation as to why their statement was not recorded or

the accused arrayed in a proper FIR immediately thereafter.

13. Now we come to PW14, one of the injured witnesses

on whom reliance was placed by both the High Court and

the trial court. PW18 does not speak of any statement having

been recorded from PW14 in his chief-examination.

However, in cross-examination PW18 stated that PW14 was

examined at Solace Hospital, Goalpara on 22.07.2008; long

after the registration of the FIR. The other five eyewitnesses

were also stated to have been examined under Section 164

Cr.P.C. on 19.07.2008. There is no statement by PW1 as to

any statement under Section 161 having been recorded

from the said witnesses. Interestingly, PW18 also says that

PW14 did not state before him that he had tried to obstruct

the assault on the deceased. PW18 also denied PW14 having

informed him of the treatment taken at different places or

that he was assaulted by a beki dao. In this context, we have

to notice the deposition of PW14 that during the course of

the attack he became unconscious and he regained his

consciousness in the Solace Hospital around 1’o Clock on

the following day. He also deposed that he had been

referred to the Government Medical College Hospital,

Page 11 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. Guwahati on that day, that is 09.07.2008. The statement in

cross-examination of PW18 that he examined PW14 on

22.07.2008 at Solace Hospital, Goalpara hence cannot be

believed.

14. PW14 spoke of cut blows on his hand and legs, on his

right wrist and the waist as also the right arm. He also

deposed that his legs were plastered. His deposition

indicates that he was first treated at one Solace Hospital and

then referred to GMCH, Guwahati. Absolutely, no intimation

to the Police Station was received from the Solace Hospital

in which he was admitted on 08.07.2008. There is no wound

certificate issued either from Solace Hospital or the GMCH,

produced in the trial. The injury sustained by PW14 though

spoken by all eyewitnesses there was nothing to establish

that PW14 actually sustained the said injuries.

15. The eyewitnesses spoke of the incident in tune with

the prosecution story about the attack on the deceased,

PW14 and PW6. PW6 is said to have suffered stab injuries

and she speaks of having lost her consciousness at the P.O.

Again, there was no proof of the injuries sustained by PW6.

We pause here to notice that despite the police having

reached the spot immediately after the assault in which

Page 12 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. allegedly one person was killed and two others injured

grievously, no attempt was made to collect the blood spilled

at the P.O, so as to match it with that of the deceased and the

injured.

16. PW6, as we noticed, was disbelieved by the trial court

and the High Court and the injury sustained by PW14 has

also not been proved in which circumstance, we cannot find

the narration of the incident as one proffered by ‘injured

eyewitness’. The credibility of an injured eyewitness, as has

been held by this Court is a tad higher than an eyewitness

who has just seen the incident. The very fact that the witness

suffered an injury in the same transaction adds to its

credibility. On the other hand, 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 than that available to a chance witness, but it also

makes doubtful their very presence in the P.O.

17. Insofar as the other eyewitnesses are concerned

though they supported the prosecution as to the crime

proper and identified the assailants, they too spoke of the

injuries suffered by PW6 & PW14, raising a cloud of

suspicion accentuated by the fact that all of them are related

Page 13 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. witnesses, in fact close relatives. Related witnesses, as is

trite, cannot always be termed to be interested witnesses,

but here the incident having occurred on a public road their

presence together cannot be presumed as natural. The

prosecution case is also that the eyewitnesses having met at

the Karbala Bazar were travelling on four motorbikes to

their homes in the locality. All the four bikes were seized

by the police from the P.O, by the seizure list Annexure P4

detailing the engine number, chassis number and the

registration number of the bikes with a description of the

make and color along with the owners’ name and

specifically indicating who drove each bike and who was

travelling pillion. If such an account was made by any of the

eyewitnesses, it is strange that the I.O did not record an FIS,

then and there with the name of the assailants arrayed as

accused. In the given circumstances, we are unable to give

any credence to Annexure P4, which proclaims the seizure

to have been made at the spot, immediately after the crime;

alarmingly doubtful.

18. Further, despite the ownership of the vehicles having

been indicated in the seizure Mahazar, there is no document

produced before the Court to substantiate such ownership.

Page 14 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. The motor bikes seized were also not produced before

Court at any time before or at the time of trial to confront the

witnesses; neither the eyewitness who travelled in the bikes

or the other witnesses who gathered at the spot immediately

thereafter. 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.

19. It also assumes relevance that the eyewitnesses never

fled from the P.O and most of them claimed their presence

even when the villagers gathered at the spot and when the

police arrived. PW3 to PW6 and PW8 to PW11 are persons

who converged at the P.O immediately after the incident.

They spoke of the presence of some of the eyewitnesses

which itself is suspect since then the name of the assailants

would have been disclosed at that point itself, all of the

assailants being of the very same village. But for the

deceased having been attacked brutally with grievous

injuries inflicted and his left hand severed at the wrist,

spoken of by the witnesses who converged on the spot, also

evidenced by the inquest and the postmortem report, there

is no credible evidence to substantiate the prosecution

Page 15 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc. case. The eyewitnesses paraded before the Court are not

believable since their presence in the P.O is highly

improbable for not being established unequivocally; in the

context of no evidence having been adduced to substantiate

the story of the five witnesses, close relatives, having

travelled with the deceased on four bikes.

20. 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 with the names and asserting

identification on sight of the other 10-12 assailants who is

said to have participated in the assault when PW1 was not

an eyewitness. It is also the evidence at the trial that at least

three eyewitnesses were present at the spot when the police

arrived.

21. The seizure list of the motor bikes; doubtful in its

genesis, though indicating the ownership of the respective

bikes, there are no documents seized indicating such

ownership; which was never proved. The weapons seized

were neither sent for forensic analysis, nor were they

confronted to the eyewitnesses or the Doctor who

conducted the postmortem.

Page 16 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

22. It is unfortunate that PW18, the police officer who

reached the spot immediately after the incident took place,

on the basis of an information over telephone, failed to

follow due procedure to put the criminal investigation in

motion as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Be it

ignorance, inefficiency or malicious motivation, the crime is

left unresolved and considerable time and money has been

spent in the prosecution of 16 persons, some of whom died

during trial and the others suffered incarceration for long

periods. The State and its Department of Home would do

well to better equip their officers in investigating crimes and

educating them of due procedure.

23. The appeals are allowed, acquitting the appellants

and cancelling the bail bonds of the accused who is/are on

bail.

24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

...……..……………………. J.

(SANJAY KUMAR)

....…….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN) NEW DELHI;

APRIL 28, 2026.

Page 17 of 17 Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.