SC UPHOLDS MURDER CONVICTION, ADDRESSES EVIDENCE AND REMISSION PLEA
The Judgment in the Case of Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. State of Maharashtra, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2013, was delivered by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court of India comprising Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih on 24.03.2025. This Judgment deals with the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 IPC for murder, examining whether the offence should be reduced due to lack of premeditation. It also addresses the reliability of prosecution evidence and the Appellant’s plea for premature release under remission.
FACTS
The Appellant, Firoz Khan Akbarkhan, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of Sukhdeo Mahadeorao Dhurve. The incident occurred on 19.04.2005 at Gujri Bazar, where a heated altercation took place between the Accused and the deceased regarding an alleged illicit relationship involving the deceased’s sister. During the altercation, the Appellant stabbed the deceased multiple times in the chest, while a co-accused physically assaulted him. The deceased succumbed to injuries at the scene. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and co-accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment along with a fine. The High Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment, leading the Appellant to file the present Appeal before the Supreme Court.
MAIN ISSUES
- Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified, or if the offence should be considered under Section 304-I IPC due to lack of intention.
- Whether the Prosecution’s evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, was reliable and sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the Appellant’s plea for premature release after serving more than 14 years of actual imprisonment should be considered under a beneficial remission policy.
CONTENTIONS BY BOTH PARTIES
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
The Appellant contended that he was falsely implicated due to communal tensions in the village. It was argued that the Prosecution witnesses were unreliable due to inconsistencies in their statements. The Appellant submitted that there was no direct evidence proving motive or premeditation. The defense claimed that the act was spontaneous and unplanned, warranting a conviction under Section 304-I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. The Appellant also sought premature release under the most favorable remission policy applicable at the time of conviction or consideration.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS
The Prosecution maintained that the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt through eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and recovery of the weapon. The delay in recording witness statements was justified due to the prevailing unrest in the area. The Appellant’s flight from the crime scene was cited as evidence of guilt. Minor discrepancies in witness statements were argued to be immaterial and did not weaken the Prosecution’s case. The State opposed premature release, arguing that the Appellant had not completed the full sentence including remission as per the applicable policy.
SUPREME COURT
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, ruling that the nature of the attack and the injuries inflicted demonstrated an intent to kill. The Court found the Prosecution’s evidence, including eyewitness testimonies and medical reports, to be credible and consistent. The Appellant’s claim of false implication was dismissed due to lack of substantial proof. The Court ruled that the delay in recording statements did not render the Prosecution’s case unreliable. Regarding premature release, the Court directed the Appellant to submit a detailed representation justifying his claim under applicable remission policies. The State Government was instructed to consider the representation and issue a reasoned order within three months. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Appellant’s conviction and sentence, while allowing the possibility of remission consideration.
Additionally, the original case records were directed to be returned to the respective courts. I.A. No. 21892/2021 was dismissed as not pressed.
Baddam Parichaya Reddy
Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services
Please find below the YouTube Link for “Civil Trials in India” (Episode 60: The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips)
Leave a Reply