-
by Admin
14 December 2025 5:24 PM
In a significant ruling on April 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, through a full bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, upheld the acquittal of a man accused of burning his wife and three daughters to death. In Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., the apex court held that the prosecution’s failure to put the contents of the dying declarations to the accused during his examination under Section 313 CrPC resulted in a miscarriage of justice, rendering the conviction unsustainable. “When such material evidence is withheld from the accused, the trial stands vitiated,” the Court declared.
This case concerned the horrific 2008 incident in Deoria district, where Amina and her three minor daughters were set ablaze. Amina's husband, Hasim Sheikh, was charged under Section 302 IPC. Although the trial court convicted him and awarded the death penalty, the Allahabad High Court reversed the conviction in 2017. The brother of the deceased, who was the complainant, and the State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the acquittal. However, the Supreme Court, invoking core procedural safeguards, declined to overturn the High Court’s verdict.
“The Dying Declarations Were Never Put to the Accused — This Causes Prejudice”
At the heart of the Supreme Court’s reasoning was a fundamental procedural failure: the dying declarations, central to the prosecution’s case, were never confronted to the accused during his Section 313 CrPC examination. Justice Oka, writing for the bench, noted:
“As this evidence was not put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, he was denied an opportunity to explain the same. Hence, this omission causes prejudice to him.”
The Court relied on its prior judgment in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2023) 17 SCC 95], reiterating that it is the trial court’s duty to put each material circumstance appearing against the accused distinctly and separately. Such omissions, if shown to have caused prejudice, vitiate the trial.
The bench went further, observing that even a remand for fresh examination was not viable in this case: “The incident occurred in 2008… it will be unjust now at this stage to pass an order of remand for recording further statements under Section 313 of the CrPC. The remand at this stage will cause prejudice to the accused.”
“A 15-Year-Old Eyewitness Was Examined Without Any Preliminary Assessment of Competence”
Another pillar of the prosecution’s case was the minor son of the deceased couple, produced as an eyewitness (PW-5). However, the trial court failed to conduct any preliminary assessment of the child’s competence to testify, in violation of the requirements under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Citing its own rulings in P. Ramesh v. State [(2019) 20 SCC 593] and Pradeep v. State of Haryana [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 777], the Court lamented: “The learned Judge straightaway administered oath to PW-5 and recorded his deposition without satisfying himself about the competence of the minor to depose.”
Moreover, severe contradictions in PW-5’s prior and in-court statements — including an earlier statement that he didn’t know how the fire started — eroded the credibility of his account. The Court found that: “These contradictions, apart from the fact that the learned Trial Judge did not satisfy himself about the capacity of PW-5 to understand and answer questions, make the testimony of PW-5 vulnerable… it is unsafe to rely upon his evidence.”
“There Is No Explanation for the Burn Injuries Sustained by the Accused”
An additional layer of doubt was cast on the prosecution’s version due to the unexplained injuries sustained by the accused and the co-accused Aslam, who later died from his burns. The Supreme Court observed: “According to the prosecution’s case, the accused and Aslam were standing outside the room after pouring kerosene. Co-accused Aslam is himself a victim of the fire… there is no explanation offered by the prosecution of how the accused and Aslam suffered burn injuries.”
This unexplained fact, the Court said, further “raises suspicion about the prosecution’s case.”
“Even If the Incident Was Heinous, the Conviction Cannot Stand Without Legal Evidence”
While the Court acknowledged the gruesome nature of the incident, it reaffirmed the legal principle that acquittals should not be overturned merely on moral outrage or sympathy.
“It is true that the incident is very shocking… However, in the absence of legal evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.”
Even though the bench disagreed with some of the High Court’s observations, it found the final conclusion — that the accused was entitled to the benefit of doubt — to be plausible based on the record.
“Judges Must Seek Assistance to Frame Proper 313 Questions — High Courts Must Verify at Appellate Stage”
Concluding the judgment, the Supreme Court issued a direction of general application to prevent future procedural lapses: “When an appeal against conviction is preferred before the High Court, at the earliest stage, the High Court must examine whether there is a proper statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of CrPC.”
The Court also urged trial judges to involve public prosecutors and defence counsel while framing questions under Section 313, to ensure every material circumstance is addressed: “Judicial Officers will be well advised to take benefit of sub-section (5) of Section 313CrPC… Lawyers must act as officers of the court and not as mouthpieces of their respective clients.”
A copy of the judgment was directed to be circulated to the National Judicial Academy and State Judicial Academies.
With these findings, the Supreme Court dismissed both the appeals, upholding the acquittal of the accused.
“Though we do not agree with some of the findings recorded by the High Court, it is not possible to find fault with the ultimate conclusion drawn by it.” — Supreme Court
Date of Decision: April 22, 2025
