The “Sakhawat Doctrine” – When Exculpatory Affidavits Surface, Investigation Cannot Remain Passive

1. Introduction

Criminal Appeal No. 4571 of 2024 culminated in the Supreme Court’s decision in Sakhawat & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 INSC 777. The Court overturned concurrent findings of conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) and attempt to murder (Section 307/34 IPC) recorded by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the Allahabad High Court. At the heart of the controversy lay three crucial affidavits sworn by principal eyewitnesses during the bail proceedings—affidavits that exonerated the appellants and pointed fingers elsewhere. The Court identified a systemic failure of the investigating agency to probe those affidavits, branding the lapse a violation of the constitutional mandate of fair investigation under Article 21.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court scrutinised the prosecution evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-4 (informant) and two other eyewitnesses (PW-5 and PW-6).
It noted that PW-5, PW-6 and the injured PW-7 had earlier filed affidavits in the Sessions Court bail proceedings stating that the appellants were not the assailants; yet these affidavits were neither investigated nor disclosed at trial.
Cross-examination of the Investigating Officer (PW-10) revealed his admission of knowledge of those affidavits and his failure to seek verification or record supplementary statements.
The Court held that such omission amounted to an unfair investigation, fatally undermining the prosecution case.
Convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted; ancillary directions re-emphasised that trial court records must not be termed “Lower Court Record.”

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited & Jurisprudential Lineage

Although the judgment itself did not rely on an exhaustive list of citations, it draws strength from established constitutional jurisprudence on fair investigation and fair trial:

Manu Sharma v. NCT of Delhi (2010) 6 SCC 1 – emphasising the neutrality of investigation.
Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) 3 SCC 135 – recognising the Court’s duty to order further investigation where initial probe is tainted.
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (Best Bakery case) (2004) 4 SCC 158 – defining the right to a fair trial as integral to Article 21.
Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015) 7 SCC 178 – holding that suppression of evidence is a grave blow to prosecution credibility.

The Court’s approach in Sakhawat harmonises these precedents, expanding them by formulating a clear operational duty: when exculpatory material (such as affidavits) emerges, the investigating agency must actively verify, record, and, if necessary, incorporate such material in the final report.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

Centrality of Fair Investigation
Article 21 guarantees life and personal liberty; implicit therein is the assurance that no person shall be deprived thereof except by a fair, just and reasonable procedure. The Court held that failure to probe the affidavits amounted to a procedural deficit so fundamental that it vitiated the entire prosecution.
Value of Exculpatory Affidavits
Affidavits by key eyewitnesses rejecting prosecution’s narrative constitute significant exculpatory evidence. The investigator’s duty extends beyond gathering inculpatory material; he must equally investigate anything that may exonerate the accused.
Consequences of Suppression
The Court reasoned that once the investigating officer conceded knowledge of the affidavits but made no effort to verify thumb impressions or record supplementary statements, his investigation became partisan. Such suppression impeaches the credibility of all ocular evidence sans corroboration.
Unreliability of Remaining Evidence
With PW-5, PW-6 and PW-7’s trial testimony already suspect, the case rested almost wholly on PW-4. Given PW-7’s affidavit naming PW-4 as an assailant, relying on PW-4 alone was unsafe in law.
Benefit of Doubt
The cumulative effect of defective investigation, suppressed affidavits, absence of weapon recovery and contradictory witness statements raised reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.

3.3 Impact of the Judgment

The decision, now dubbed the “Sakhawat Doctrine”, will resonate across criminal jurisprudence:

Investigative Duty Enhanced – Police must formally verify and investigate any exculpatory material that surfaces, especially sworn statements in bail proceedings.
Prosecution Disclosure Obligations – The judgment implicitly affirms a “Brady-like” obligation (U.S. analogy) on the State to disclose material favourable to the accused.
Trial Court Scrutiny – Sessions Courts must examine investigation fairness; blindness to suppressed material can now be a ground for appellate reversal.
Defence Strategy – Affidavits or prior inconsistent statements gain strategic importance; defence may insist on forensic verification of signatures/thumb impressions.
Terminology Reform – Reinforces the earlier direction against the phrase “Lower Court Record,” promoting institutional respect in hierarchical judiciary.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Fair Investigation – A probe that is unbiased, complete, and explores both evidence against and for the accused.
Hostile Witness – A witness who resiles from earlier statements; courts may rely on parts of such testimony if independently corroborated.
Exculpatory Evidence – Material tending to clear a defendant from fault or guilt.
Article 21 – Fundamental right guaranteeing life and personal liberty, interpreted broadly to include fair trial and fair investigation.
Section 34 IPC – Imputes joint liability when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
Supplementary Statement – Additional statement recorded by police under Section 161 CrPC when new facts emerge.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Sakhawat recalibrates the scales of criminal justice by stressing that truth-seeking, not conviction-seeking, is the cornerstone of investigations. When eyewitnesses file affidavits contradicting the charge, the State’s inaction is not a mere procedural irregularity—it is a constitutional infringement. The “Sakhawat Doctrine” therefore:

Mandates proactive verification of exculpatory affidavits by investigators.
Declares suppression of such material fatal to the prosecution.
Empowers courts to treat deficient investigation as a ground for acquittal.

By foregrounding fairness at every stage—from police station to Supreme Court—the decision fortifies the bulwark against wrongful convictions and advances the ethos of due process embedded in Article 21.