In a crucial judgment safeguarding the rights of the accused, the Supreme Court in Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh emphasized the mandatory scrutiny of Section 313 CrPC statements by appellate courts.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling aimed at reinforcing fair trial standards, the Supreme Court has held that
High Courts, while hearing appeals against convictions, must examine at the earliest stage whether the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) has been properly recorded. If any deficiencies are found, the High Court must take prompt steps to cure them either by recording a fresh statement itself or by directing the Trial Court to do so.
The decision came in the case titled Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 529], where the apex court upheld the High Court’s order acquitting the appellant-husband, who had been convicted by the Trial Court for the deaths of his wife and three daughters due to burn injuries.
Background of the Case
The tragic case involved the death of the appellant’s wife, their three daughters, and a cousin, all of whom sustained severe burn injuries. The incident was reported by the deceased wife’s brother, who alleged that the appellant had a history of domestic abuse and had poured kerosene on the victims before setting them on fire. Two of the daughters initially survived and provided dying declarations, which were heavily relied upon by the prosecution.
According to the first daughter’s statement, her father, along with villagers, doused them in kerosene and set them ablaze. The second daughter stated that the father locked them in a room, poured kerosene, and set them on fire. Based on these declarations and the testimony of the surviving minor son, the Trial Court had convicted the husband.
However, the High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused, citing serious procedural lapses—particularly the fact that the dying declarations were never put to the accused during his Section 313 CrPC examination, thereby depriving him of the opportunity to explain or rebut this key evidence.
Supreme Court’s Observations
A three-judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Pankaj Mithal, and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah emphasized the critical role of Section 313 CrPC in safeguarding the rights of the accused. The Court noted that procedural fairness demands that every material circumstance used against an accused be brought to their notice during their examination.
Citing its earlier decision in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Bench reiterated:
“It is the duty of the trial court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively, and separately… This enables the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence.”
The Court observed that
“ the Tahsildar who recorded the dying declarations admitted that they had not been read over to the victims. More importantly, these declarations were never presented to the appellant during his examination under Section 313, causing significant prejudice“
The Bench noted:
“The prosecution relied heavily upon the dying declarations. As this evidence was not put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, he was denied the opportunity to explain the same. This omission causes prejudice to him. Therefore, the evidence of dying declarations must be excluded from consideration.”
The Court further clarified that
“although the incident was undoubtedly heinous and resulted in the death of multiple family members, a conviction cannot be sustained in the absence of legally admissible and properly confronted evidence”
Verdict and Implications
Upholding the High Court’s acquittal, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision was a possible view based on the available evidence and did not warrant interference. The judgment reinforces the constitutional principle that criminal convictions must be based on procedures that strictly adhere to principles of natural justice and due process.
The apex court’s directive for early-stage scrutiny of Section 313 CrPC compliance in appellate proceedings is likely to serve as a critical checkpoint in safeguarding the rights of accused persons, particularly in serious criminal trials involving circumstantial or declaratory evidence.
Appearances
- For the Appellant: AOR Shubhranshu Padhi, with Advocates Jay Nirupam, D. Girish Kumar, Pranav Giri, Ekansh Sisodia, and A.M. Harsavardhini.
- For the Respondents: AOR Anuvrat Sharma and Anjani Kumar Mishra, with Advocates Alka Sinha, Hardeep Kaur Mishra, Praveen Mishra, Ravi Abhilash, and Javed Lateef.
CASE TITLE: Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 529
READ JUDGEMENT HERE:
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE