Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh

Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/cbze/

Citation: 2025 INSC 529
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Abhay S. Oka, Pankaj Mithal, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.
Date of Judgment: April 22, 2025
Appeals: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2142, 2143-2144 of 2017
Parties: Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh (Appellant/Complainant), State of Uttar Pradesh (Appellant), Hasim Sheikh (Respondent/Accused)

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Dying Declarations – Section 313 CrPC – Minor Witness – Burn Injuries – Reasonable Doubt.

The incident, involving the gruesome death of a woman and her three daughters due to burn injuries, was shocking. However, the absence of credible legal evidence necessitated upholding the acquittal. The Court emphasized the importance of proper examination under Section 313 CrPC and recommended that judicial academies address recurring lapses in this regard.

Appeals dismissed. Acquittal of the accused upheld. Appreciation recorded for amicus curiae Shubhranshu Padhi.

Table of Contents

Facts

On December 26, 2008, Amina, wife of the accused Hasim Sheikh, and their three daughters, Najma, Fatima, and Salma, died due to burn injuries in a gruesome incident in Uttar Pradesh. The co-accused, Aslam (cousin of the accused), also succumbed to burn injuries. The complainant, Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh (Amina’s brother), alleged that the accused, along with Aslam, poured kerosene on Amina and her daughters and set them on fire following domestic disputes. The prosecution relied on dying declarations by Amina and Fatima, recorded by a Tahsildar (PW-11), and the testimony of Kamar Hasim (PW-5), the 15-year-old son of the accused. The trial court convicted Hasim under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to death, classifying the case as “rarest of rare.” The High Court acquitted the accused, prompting appeals by the complainant and the State.

Issues

Whether the dying declarations of Amina and Fatima were admissible and reliable.
Whether the testimony of the minor witness (PW-5) was credible.
Whether the prosecution’s failure to comply with Section 313 CrPC prejudiced the accused.
Whether the burn injuries to the accused and co-accused raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.
Whether the High Court’s acquittal was justified.

Holdings

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the High Court’s acquittal, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key holdings:

Dying Declarations: The dying declarations were inadmissible as they were not put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 CrPC, denying him an opportunity to explain. Additionally, the declarations lacked proper endorsement, and the doctor’s certification only noted “fit” without confirming the victims’ capacity to make statements.
Minor Witness: The testimony of PW-5 was unreliable due to material contradictions with his prior statements under Section 161 CrPC and the trial court’s failure to assess his competency through preliminary questions, as required under Section 118 of the Evidence Act.
Section 313 CrPC: The omission to put material evidence, including dying declarations, to the accused was a serious irregularity that prejudiced him. Remanding the case after 14 years was deemed unjust due to the accused’s incarceration and the threat of capital punishment.
Burn Injuries: The prosecution failed to explain the 20% burn injuries to the accused and 40% fatal burns to Aslam, casting doubt on the narrative that they set the victims on fire and remained outside the room.
Acquittal: The High Court’s finding that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt was a possible view based on the evidence. The possibility of another view did not justify overturning the acquittal.

Reasoning

The Court emphasized procedural lapses and evidentiary weaknesses:

The trial court’s failure to test PW-5’s competency and the contradictions in his statements undermined his credibility.
The dying declarations were procedurally flawed and not presented to the accused, violating fair trial principles under Section 313 CrPC.
The unexplained burn injuries to the accused and Aslam suggested an alternative scenario, weakening the prosecution’s case.
The Court noted the shocking nature of the incident but held that convictions require credible legal evidence, which was absent.
The Court suggested that High Courts examine Section 313 CrPC compliance early in appeals to cure defects and avoid prejudice due to delays.

Key Precedents

Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 17 SCC 95: Failure to put material evidence to the accused under Section 313 CrPC is a serious irregularity.
P. Ramesh v. State (2019) 20 SCC 593: A minor is a competent witness if capable of understanding questions and giving rational answers.
Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) SCC Online SC 777: Courts must cautiously scrutinize child witness testimony and ensure competency.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

What was the primary reason the Supreme Court excluded the dying declarations of Amina and Fatima from consideration?
a) They were not recorded by a competent authority.
b) They were not put to the accused during examination under Section 313 CrPC.
c) The victims were not conscious when the statements were recorded.
d) The declarations contradicted the medical evidence.
Correct Answer: b) They were not put to the accused during examination under Section 313 CrPC.
Explanation: The Court held that failing to present the dying declarations to the accused under Section 313 CrPC denied him an opportunity to explain, causing prejudice.
Why was the testimony of PW-5 (Kamar Hasim) deemed unreliable?
a) He was not present at the scene of the incident.
b) His testimony contained material contradictions, and his competency was not assessed.
c) He was coerced by the prosecution to testify.
d) He was not a competent witness under the Evidence Act.
Correct Answer: b) His testimony contained material contradictions, and his competency was not assessed.
Explanation: PW-5’s prior statements under Section 161 CrPC contradicted his trial testimony, and the trial court failed to ask preliminary questions to ascertain his competency as a minor witness.
What was the significance of the burn injuries to the accused and co-accused Aslam in the case?
a) They proved the accused’s intent to commit the crime.
b) They were irrelevant to the prosecution’s case.
c) They raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.
d) They confirmed the prosecution’s version of events.
Correct Answer: c) They raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.
Explanation: The prosecution failed to explain the 20% burns on the accused and 40% fatal burns on Aslam, contradicting the claim that they set the fire and remained outside.
Why did the Supreme Court refuse to remand the case for further examination under Section 313 CrPC?
a) The trial court lacked jurisdiction to retry the case.
b) The evidence was insufficient to warrant a retrial.
c) A 14-year delay would prejudice the accused.
d) The High Court had already cured the defect.
Correct Answer: c) A 14-year delay would prejudice the accused.
Explanation: After 14 years, remanding the case was deemed unjust due to the accused’s incarceration and the prior threat of capital punishment.
What suggestion did the Supreme Court make to prevent future lapses under Section 313 CrPC?
a) Trial courts should record statements without legal assistance.
b) High Courts should review Section 313 CrPC compliance early in appeals.
c) Prosecutors should solely prepare questions for the accused.
d) Judicial academies should eliminate training on Section 313 CrPC.
Correct Answer: b) High Courts should review Section 313 CrPC compliance early in appeals.
Explanation: Early review by High Courts can cure defects promptly, avoiding prejudice due to delays.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What was the main issue in Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.?
The main issue was whether the prosecution proved the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the murder of his wife and three daughters by burning. The Supreme Court examined the admissibility of dying declarations, the reliability of a minor witness, compliance with Section 313 CrPC, and the significance of burn injuries to the accused and co-accused.
Why did the Supreme Court uphold the High Court’s acquittal of the accused?
The Court upheld the acquittal because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Key evidence, such as dying declarations, was inadmissible due to non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC, the minor witness’s testimony was unreliable, and unexplained burn injuries to the accused and co-accused raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.
What role did the failure to comply with Section 313 CrPC play in the case?
The failure to put material evidence, including dying declarations, to the accused during his examination under Section 313 CrPC was a serious irregularity. It prejudiced the accused by denying him an opportunity to explain the evidence, leading to the exclusion of the dying declarations from consideration.
Why was the testimony of the minor witness (PW-5) considered unreliable?
PW-5’s testimony was unreliable because it contained material contradictions with his prior statements under Section 161 CrPC, and the trial court did not assess his competency as a minor witness by asking preliminary questions, as required under Section 118 of the Evidence Act.
What broader judicial recommendation did the Supreme Court make in this case?
The Court recommended that High Courts examine compliance with Section 313 CrPC at the earliest stage in appeals against conviction. This would allow defects to be cured promptly, either by the High Court or by directing the trial court, avoiding prejudice to the accused due to delays.