The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of a deceased court employee under Section 195-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that he could not be held guilty under a provision that was not on the statute book at the time the offence was committed in 1999. A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, however, upheld his conviction for criminal intimidation under Section 506-B of the IPC.
In a judgment delivered on September 15, 2025, the Court also directed the Government of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider the termination of the employee’s service, taking a “humanitarian approach” towards his surviving family’s claim for terminal benefits. The appeal was pursued by the deceased’s wife and children after his death during the pendency of his appeal in the High Court.
Case Background
The case originates from the tragic death of a minor girl who set herself ablaze on February 19, 1999, and succumbed to her injuries four days later. The First Information Report (FIR), lodged by the victim’s mother (PW-4), alleged that her daughter had been molested by a co-convict named Munna. It was further alleged that Sheikh Akhtar, who was a ‘Naib Nazir’ in the local court, along with Munna and two others, had been threatening the victim with “dire consequences” if she deposed against Munna in court. They allegedly threatened to kill the victim and her father unless they compromised the matter. According to the prosecution, the victim, unable to withstand the threat, took her own life to save her father.
On March 28, 2007, the Sessions Court convicted Sheikh Akhtar for offences under Section 305 (Abetment of suicide of child) and Section 506-B (Criminal intimidation) of the IPC, sentencing him to ten years and two years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.
Akhtar challenged this verdict before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in 2007. He passed away on April 23, 2015, while the appeal was pending. His widow, Jameela, and their children continued the appeal, hoping that an acquittal would entitle them to the terminal benefits from his more than 30 years of service, which had been terminated following his conviction.
The High Court, in its judgment dated April 25, 2024, held that Akhtar could not be held guilty under Section 305 IPC. However, it convicted him, in the alternative, under Section 195-A IPC (Threatening any person to give false evidence) and upheld the conviction under Section 506-B IPC, maintaining the original sentence. The present appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by Akhtar’s family against this order.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Counsel for the appellants argued that there were “gross inconsistencies” in the testimonies of the victim’s mother (PW-4) and sister (PW-3) regarding the number of times the victim was threatened on the fateful day. They also pointed out that other prosecution witnesses (PW-5, 6, and 7) did not name Akhtar as one of the threateners.
The primary legal challenge was against the conviction under Section 195-A of the IPC. The appellants contended that the High Court “grossly erred” because the offence occurred on February 19, 1999, whereas Section 195-A was inserted into the IPC by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, with effect from April 16, 2006. Convicting Akhtar under this section, they argued, was a “clear breach of clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India,” which prohibits conviction under ex post facto laws.
The respondent-State did not attempt to justify the conviction under Section 195-A IPC but maintained that the conviction under Section 506-B IPC was sound and did not suffer from any infirmity.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The Supreme Court first addressed the evidentiary arguments. Regarding the inconsistencies in witness statements, the bench observed, “it is not the requirement of law that an FIR while disclosing a cognizable offence must also reveal all facts preceding and following the incident of offence with precision.” The court found no reason to discredit the evidence of the mother and sister that Akhtar had threatened the victim.
On the High Court’s decision to convict under Section 195-A IPC, the Supreme Court concurred with the appellants. The judgment stated, “We are in agreement with learned counsel for the appellants that the High Court could not have found Akhtar guilty of Section 195-A IPC.”
The bench then turned to the conviction under Section 506-B IPC, noting that the High Court had not independently discussed the evidence for this charge. The Supreme Court conducted its own examination of the record. “Considering the evidence on record and in view of our discussions as above relatable to the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4, we have no hesitation in holding that Akhtar was one of four who threatened the victim and, therefore, his conviction under section 506-B warrants no interference,” the court ruled.
The Court also dismissed the appellants’ reliance on defence witnesses who claimed Akhtar was present in the court during the entire day of the incident, noting that the Sessions Court had assigned “good reasons” for finding their evidence not creditworthy, a finding that was not challenged before the High Court.
Final Decision and Direction
The Supreme Court concluded that the conviction under Section 195-A IPC was “unsustainable in law.” The acquittal under Section 305 IPC by the High Court had attained finality as the state did not appeal it. Consequently, only the conviction under Section 506-B IPC survived.
Recognizing that the family pursued the litigation solely for terminal benefits, the Court issued a special direction. It noted that Akhtar’s service was terminated based on convictions under both Section 305 and Section 506-B IPC. With the graver charge under Section 305 IPC set aside, the court held: “we are of the considered opinion that interests of justice would be best served if the respondent-State considers the matter of termination of service of Akhtar de novo and decides, whether for his conviction only under section 506-B IPC, the right to terminal benefits accruing for rendering three decades of service would stand forfeited for all times to come.”
While disposing of the appeal, the Supreme Court requested the appropriate department in the Government of Madhya Pradesh to complete this consideration, “adopting a humanitarian approach,” preferably within three months.
