In a significant judgment underscoring the critical importance of recording statements under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) (now Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the Supreme Court dismissed criminal appeals challenging the acquittal of Hasim Sheikh, accused of burning his wife and three daughters to death. The Court held that the prosecution’s failure to put key evidence to the accused under Section 313 CrPC rendered it legally inadmissible, thereby tying the hands of the judiciary despite the gravity of the crime.
The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, and Ahsanuddin Amanullah in Criminal Appeal No. 2142 of 2017, titled Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., and connected appeals filed by the State.
Background of the Case
The case pertained to a gruesome incident dated December 26, 2008, in which Amina (wife of the accused Hasim Sheikh) and her three daughters—Najma, Fatima, and Salma—suffered fatal burn injuries. Najma died on the spot, while the others succumbed to their injuries over the following days. A cousin of the accused, Aslam, also sustained burn injuries and died on January 2, 2009. Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh (PW-1), the brother of the deceased Amina, filed the FIR the same day, and charges were framed under Sections 302, 307, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
The Trial Court convicted Hasim Sheikh and sentenced him to death, treating the case as falling under the “rarest of rare” category. However, the Allahabad High Court acquitted the accused and declined to confirm the capital punishment. This led to the appeals before the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issue and Submissions
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the acquittal of the accused by the High Court could be set aside in view of the serious nature of the crime and the evidence presented, including dying declarations and eyewitness testimony.
Shri Shubhranshu Padhi, appointed as amicus curiae to represent PW-1, contended that the dying declarations of Amina and Fatima were credible and had been properly recorded by the Tehsildar (PW-11) after obtaining fitness certificates from the attending doctor. He also emphasized the reliability of the minor son of the accused (PW-5), who had testified against his father.
The State supported the contentions of the complainant and urged the Court to reverse the acquittal.
Counsel for the accused argued that the vital evidence, particularly the dying declarations, had not been put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, thus violating his right to a fair trial. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 17 SCC 95.
Court’s Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed reappraisal of the evidence and noted serious procedural deficiencies:
- On the Child Witness (PW-5):
The Court held that the Trial Judge failed to conduct a proper preliminary examination of the minor witness to assess his competence under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act. No questions were recorded to ascertain his ability to comprehend and respond, and the oath was administered without due diligence. Moreover, material contradictions were found in his testimony when compared to his previous statements under Section 161 CrPC. - On the Dying Declarations:
The Court noted that the dying declarations recorded by the Tehsildar were not read over to the victims and lacked endorsements. Critically, none of the prosecution witnesses’ evidence regarding the dying declarations were put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, thereby violating his statutory right to respond to incriminating evidence.
The Bench emphasized:
“The prosecution has heavily relied upon the dying declarations of the two victims. 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.” - On the Accused’s Burn Injuries:
It was also noted that both the accused and co-accused Aslam suffered significant burn injuries (20% and 40% respectively), which contradicted the prosecution’s version that they remained outside during the incident. - On the High Court’s Verdict:
While disagreeing with some findings of the High Court, the Bench held that its conclusion—that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt—was a plausible view. Since this was an appeal against acquittal, a contrary view alone was insufficient to warrant reversal.
Important Observations and Directions
The Court reiterated settled law from Raj Kumar regarding compliance with Section 313 CrPC:
“It is the duty of the trial court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately… Failure to do so amounts to a serious irregularity.”
Recognizing the frequency of such lapses, the Court issued an important direction to High Courts:
“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 (now Section 351 of the BNSS). If any defect is found, at that stage, the same can be cured… If this approach is adopted, the argument of delay and prejudice will not be available to the accused.”
The Court further urged judicial academies to sensitize trial judges about the importance of proper compliance with this provision.
Conclusion
Given the procedural lapses and prejudice caused to the accused, especially due to the non-inclusion of key evidence in his Section 313 statement, the Supreme Court held that no interference with the High Court’s acquittal was warranted. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
The Court also expressed appreciation for the assistance rendered by amicus curiae Shri Shubhranshu Padhi.
Citation:
Criminal Appeal No. 2142 of 2017 | Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
