The Supreme Court of India has ruled that an adequately explained delay in recording witness statements does not automatically benefit the accused in a criminal trial.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India, in a recent judgment, has held that
“a delay in recording witness statements—particularly when adequately explained—does not automatically benefit the accused”
The ruling was delivered in a criminal appeal challenging a judgment of the Bombay High Court, which had affirmed the conviction and sentencing of the accused as determined by the Trial Court.
A three-judge bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih stated,
“Stricto sensu, delay in recording witness statements, moreso when the said delay is explained, will not aid an accused. Of course, no hard-and-fast principle in this regard ought to be or can be laid down, as delay, if any, in recording statements will have to be examined by the Court concerned in conjunction with the peculiar facts of the case before it. Our reading of the above shall apply on all fours to delays in the context of Section 164 of the Code.”
Case Background
The appeal was filed by the primary accused, Firoz Khan Akbarkhan, against his conviction for murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case, dating back to 2005, revolved around a dispute between the accused and the deceased that culminated in a fatal altercation.
According to the prosecution, the previous night witnessed an argument between the accused and the deceased. The next morning, while the deceased was near a marketplace outside a hair salon, the three accused confronted him again.
The altercation was allegedly triggered by claims of illicit relations between the deceased’s sister and a man from the village. During this confrontation, Accused No. 2 seized the deceased’s collar, and the appellant (Accused No. 1) repeatedly stabbed the deceased in the chest with a knife. Accused No. 2 then kicked the victim in the chest and neck, while Accused No. 3 was present at the scene.
As a result of the brutal assault, the deceased suffered severe bleeding and succumbed to his injuries on the spot.
The Investigating Officer (IO) was informed of the incident and arrived at the location with police personnel, where they found a volatile situation with members of the public damaging property and engaging in physical altercations. The authorities managed to restore order before registering the First Information Report (FIR).
Trial Court and High Court Findings
The Trial Court found the accused guilty based on substantial evidence, including the testimonies of eyewitnesses. The court sentenced Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, while Accused No. 3 was acquitted due to insufficient evidence against him. This decision was subsequently upheld by the Bombay High Court, prompting the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The bench emphasized that the presence of the appellant at the crime scene and his act of repeatedly stabbing the deceased had been consistently corroborated by multiple eyewitness accounts. The defense was unable to discredit the evidence presented.
The Court further clarified that minor inconsistencies or discrepancies in witness testimonies do not weaken the prosecution’s case, provided that the overall evidence remains credible and coherent.
Rejecting the appellant’s plea for reclassification of the offense under Section 304-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the
“Intent to kill was evident from the manner in which the attack was carried out. It held that the act fell squarely under Section 302 IPC (murder) and that there was no legal ground to modify the conviction”
Consideration for Premature Release
While dismissing the appeal, the Court acknowledged that the appellant had already undergone more than 14 years and 10 months of actual incarceration, which, when considering remission, totaled over 20 years. It granted the appellant liberty to file a fresh representation seeking premature release under the policy in effect at the time of conviction or a more favorable policy, if available.
The Supreme Court directed the State Government to examine the appellant’s request and issue a reasoned order within three months.
This judgment reiterates the Supreme Court’s position that a delay in recording witness statements does not automatically vitiate a criminal case, especially when such delay is satisfactorily explained. It also highlights the significance of consistent eyewitness testimony in securing a conviction and the limited scope for modifying a conviction under Section 302 IPC unless compelling legal grounds exist. Additionally, it provides guidance on considering premature release applications based on incarceration duration and remission policies.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring that justice is served while balancing concerns of fairness in procedural aspects.
Cause Title : Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. The State of Maharashtra
Citation: 2025 INSC 387
Legal Representation:
- For the Appellant: Senior Advocate Kiran Suri and AOR Nidhi
- For the Respondent (State): AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, along with Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari and Sourav Singh
READ MORE REPORTS ON JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
