Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 22 April 2025
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, Ahsanuddin Amanullah
In a shocking case of family tragedy, the Supreme Court of India recently addressed the complexities of evidence and procedure in criminal trials. The case, Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, involved the death of a woman, Amina, and her three daughters due to severe burn injuries. The accused, Hasim Sheikh, Amina’s husband, was initially convicted of murder but later acquitted by the High Court.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, examined the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The critical issues revolved around the admissibility and reliability of dying declarations, the testimony of a child witness, and procedural lapses during the trial.
Case Background
The case originated from a gruesome incident where Amina, wife of the accused Hasim Sheikh, and her three daughters, Najma, Fatima, and Salma, sustained fatal burn injuries. Even Aslam (cousin of the accused) also died due to the burn injuries sustained in the same incident. The complainant, Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh, is the brother of the deceased Amina.
According to the prosecution, on 26th December 2008, Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh visited his sister’s house after learning that the accused used to abuse and beat his wife and daughters. His attempt to resolve the issue was unsuccessful, and as he was leaving, Amina warned him not to go, fearing that the accused and his family intended to kill her.
Hours later, Aejaz received a call informing him that Hasim, along with his cousin Aslam, had poured kerosene on Amina and her daughters and set them on fire. Najma died on the spot, while Amina, Fatima, and Salma were rushed to the District Hospital. Amina disclosed that after her brother left, the accused and Aslam committed the heinous act. Aslam was also admitted to the hospital with burn injuries.
Fatima’s dying declaration was recorded by Tahsildar Harish Chandra Singh, where she stated that her father and village people poured kerosene oil and set them on fire, blaming her paternal grandparents as the root cause. Amina’s dying declaration also stated that the accused locked her and her daughters, poured kerosene, and set them ablaze.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26th December 2008 | PW-1 Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh visited the house of the accused to resolve the issue of abuse. |
| 26th December 2008 | Accused, along with his cousin Aslam, poured kerosene on Amina and her three daughters and set them on fire. |
| 26th December 2008 | Daughter Najma died on the spot. |
| 26th December 2008 | Amina, Fatima, and Salma were admitted to the District Hospital. |
| 26th December 2008 | Dying declaration of daughter Fatima was recorded by Tahsildar Harish Chandra Singh (PW-11). |
| 26th December 2008 | Dying declaration of wife Amina was recorded by PW-11. |
| 26th December 2008 | First information report was registered for offences under Sections 302, 307, and 120B of the IPC. |
| 27th December 2008 | Recovery of burnt clothes and a plastic can containing 100 gms of kerosene from the site of the incident. |
| 1st January 2009 | Salma died. |
| 2nd January 2009 | Co-accused Aslam died. |
| 2nd January 2009 | Fatima succumbed to burn injuries. |
| 6th January 2009 | Amina died. |
| 19th April 2014 | The Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the accused and awarded capital punishment. |
| 2017 | High Court acquitted the accused. Criminal Appeal no s.2143-44 of 2017 was preferred by the State, and Criminal Appeal no.2142 of 2017 was preferred by PW-1 complainant. |
| April 22, 2025 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the acquittal. |
Legal Framework
The case involves several critical legal provisions:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the punishment for murder.
- Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section pertains to who may testify and states that a minor is a competent witness.
- Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section pertains to the examination of witnesses by police.
- Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): This section relates to the power to examine the accused.
- Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: This section relates to the power to examine the accused (corresponding to Section 313 of the CrPC).
Arguments
Arguments by the Appellant (PW-1):
- The dying declarations of Amina and Fatima were properly recorded by PW-11, Tahsildar, after obtaining a fitness certificate from PW-14, Dr. KC Rai.
- The evidence of both witnesses has not been shaken during cross-examination.
- The dying declarations are substantive pieces of evidence on which the conviction of the accused could be based and inspire confidence.
- PW-1 complainant, PW-2 Rayajul Haq, PW-3 Sadaqat Ali, and PW-4 Sajjad Ahmad have deposed that deceased Amina was in a condition to speak and point out the role of the accused.
- PW-5, a child witness, might have minor omissions and contradictions in his evidence due to his age and the trauma he experienced. His evidence should not be discarded for that reason.
- PW-5 deposed that he was threatened not to make any statement before the police authorities.
- The High Court misread the medical evidence and erroneously concluded that Najma committed suicide and others were injured while trying to save her.
- The guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Arguments by the Accused:
- The evidence of dying declarations was not put to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC.
Authorities Relied Upon:
- Raju Devade v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 11 SCC 673
- J. Ramulu & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 16 SCC 432
- Balbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2006) 12 SCC 283
- Baleshwar Mahto and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2017) 3 SCC 152
- Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 17 SCC 95
Submissions Categorized by Main Submissions
| Main Submission | Appellant (PW-1) | Accused |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Dying Declarations | ✓ Properly recorded by PW-11 after fitness certificate. ✓ Evidence unshaken in cross-examination. ✓ Substantive evidence inspiring confidence. |
✗ Evidence not put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC. |
| Witness Testimony | ✓ PW-1 to PW-4 testified Amina could speak and identify the accused. ✓ Minor contradictions in PW-5’s testimony due to age and trauma. ✓ PW-5 was threatened before making a statement. |
|
| Interpretation of Evidence | ✓ High Court misread medical evidence. ✓ Guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
- Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Whether the dying declarations of the deceased victims were admissible and reliable as evidence.
- Whether the testimony of the child witness (PW-5) was credible and could be relied upon for conviction.
- Whether the omission to put the evidence of dying declarations to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC caused prejudice to the accused.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”
| Issue | How the Court Dealt With It | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence | Insufficient | Material contradictions in the evidence of PW-5, and other witnesses. |
| Admissibility and Reliability of Dying Declarations | Inadmissible | Evidence was not put to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. |
| Credibility of Child Witness (PW-5) | Unreliable | Preliminary questions were not put to him to ascertain his understanding and ability to answer questions rationally. Material contradictions were found in his testimony. |
| Prejudice Due to Omission under Section 313 CrPC | Prejudice Caused | The accused was denied an opportunity to explain the evidence against him, causing prejudice. Remand was deemed unjust after a long lapse of time. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| P.Ramesh v. State (2019) 20 SCC 593 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the competency of a minor witness under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. |
| Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) SCC Online SC 777 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the principles for evaluating the testimony of a child witness and the duty of the judicial officer. |
| Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 17 SCC 95 | Supreme Court of India | Summarized the law on the duty of the trial court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively, and separately under Section 313 of CrPC. |
| Raju Devade v. State of Maharashtra (2016) 11 SCC 673 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue the importance of ocular evidence over medical evidence. |
| J. Ramulu & Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 16 SCC 432 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue the importance of ocular evidence over medical evidence. |
| Balbir Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab (2006) 12 SCC 283 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue the importance of ocular evidence over medical evidence. |
| Baleshwar Mahto and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (2017) 3 SCC 152 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue the importance of ocular evidence over medical evidence. |
| Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Dealt with the competency of a minor witness. | |
| Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) | Dealt with the examination of the accused. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Treatment by the Court |
|---|---|
| Dying declarations of Amina and Fatima were properly recorded and are substantive evidence. | Rejected. The evidence was not put to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, causing prejudice. |
| Testimony of PW-5, despite minor contradictions, should be relied upon. | Rejected. The learned Trial Judge did not satisfy himself about the capacity of PW -5 to understand and answer questions. Material contradictions were found in his testimony. |
| The High Court misread the medical evidence. | The Supreme Court did not fully agree with the High Court’s findings but upheld the acquittal. |
| The evidence of dying declarations was not put to the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. | Accepted. The omission caused prejudice to the accused, rendering the evidence of dying declaration inadmissible. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- P.Ramesh v. State (2019) 20 SCC 593: The Court relied on this case to reiterate that a minor is a competent witness under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, provided they understand the questions and can give rational answers.
- Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) SCC Online SC 777: The Court cited this case to emphasize the need for careful scrutiny of a child witness’s testimony and the importance of preliminary questions to ascertain their understanding.
- Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 17 SCC 95: The Court heavily relied on this case to summarize the law on the duty of the trial court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. The omission to do so was deemed a serious irregularity.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision in Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh was primarily influenced by concerns regarding procedural lapses and the reliability of evidence presented by the prosecution.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Procedural Irregularities (Section 313 CrPC) | 40% |
| Reliability of Child Witness Testimony | 30% |
| Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence | 20% |
| Lack of Explanation for Accused’s and Co-accused’s Injuries | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Factual Aspects | 60% |
| Legal Considerations | 40% |
Logical Reasoning
Issue: Was the testimony of PW-5 reliable?
↓
Box: Did the Trial Judge ask preliminary questions to assess the witness’s understanding and competence?
↓ (No)
Box: Were there material contradictions in the witness’s testimony?
↓ (Yes)
Conclusion: Testimony of PW-5 is unreliable.
Issue: Were the dying declarations admissible as evidence?
↓
Box: Was the evidence of dying declarations presented to the accused under Section 313 CrPC?
↓ (No)
Conclusion: Dying declarations are inadmissible due to prejudice caused to the accused.
Key Takeaways
- Importance of Procedural Compliance: The judgment underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural requirements, particularly Section 313 of the CrPC, to ensure a fair trial.
- Reliability of Child Witness Testimony: Courts must thoroughly assess the competence and credibility of child witnesses before relying on their testimony.
- Admissibility of Dying Declarations: Dying declarations must be presented to the accused for explanation to be admissible as evidence.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that failure to comply with Section 313 of the CrPC by not presenting material evidence against the accused, such as dying declarations, causes prejudice and renders such evidence inadmissible. This reinforces the importance of procedural fairness and the rights of the accused in criminal trials.
Conclusion
In Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Supreme Court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to significant procedural lapses and unreliable evidence. The judgment emphasizes the necessity of adhering to legal procedures, ensuring the competence and credibility of witnesses, and protecting the rights of the accused. This case serves as a reminder of the high standards of evidence and procedure required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal trials.