In a significant ruling of Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Another., addressing procedural integrity in criminal trials, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the acquittal of Hasim Sheikh in a devastating arson case that resulted in the deaths of his wife and three daughters, along with his cousin. The Court’s decision, while acknowledging the horrific nature of the incident, underscored critical omissions in the trial process, particularly the failure to properly record the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The tragic incident, dating back to December 26, 2008, involved the burn deaths of Amina (Hasim Sheikh's wife) and their three daughters, Najma, Fatima, and Salma. The accused's cousin, Aslam, also succumbed to burn injuries sustained in the same fire. The prosecution's case was built primarily on the dying declarations of Amina and Fatima, and the testimony of the accused's minor son, Kamar Hasim (PW-5).
The Trial Court had convicted Hasim Sheikh, accepting the dying declarations and the child witness's testimony, and even sentenced him to capital punishment. However, the Chhattisgarh High Court not only refused to confirm the death penalty but acquitted the accused, prompting appeals from both the State and the complainant.
The Supreme Court, hearing the appeals, meticulously re-evaluated the evidence, focusing on the critical aspects highlighted by the defense and the appointed amicus curiae.
Concerns over Child Witness Testimony (PW-5):
The Court first addressed the testimony of PW-5, Kamar Hasim, who was 15 years old when his evidence was recorded. While acknowledging that a minor is a competent witness under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court emphasized the crucial duty of the trial judge to conduct preliminary questioning to ascertain the child's understanding and capacity to depose truthfully. In this case, the Supreme Court noted that the Trial Judge failed to put any preliminary questions to PW-5 or record satisfaction about his competence before administering the oath. This omission, coupled with "material contradictions" in PW-5's testimony (proven through the Investigating Officer's evidence, PW-10), rendered his evidence unreliable. Notably, PW-5's earlier statement to the police indicated he did not know how the fire started and that others, including the co-accused Aslam, were trying to save the victims.
Fatal Flaw in Dying Declarations: Omission in 313 CrPC Examination:
The most significant aspect of the Supreme Court's ruling revolved around the dying declarations of Amina and Fatima, allegedly recorded by PW-11 (the Tahsildar). The Court observed that PW-11 admitted in cross-examination that he did not read over the statements to the victims and there was no endorsement to that effect. Furthermore, the doctor's fitness certificate merely stated "fit" and not explicitly that the victims were in a condition to make a statement.
Crucially, the Court found that the evidence related to these dying declarations – both those allegedly made to PW-11 and to other witnesses like PW-1 – was never put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. This omission, the Court held, is a serious irregularity that denies the accused a fundamental opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances against him. Citing its own precedent in Raj Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi), the Supreme Court reiterated that material circumstances not presented to the accused during their 313 CrPC examination cannot be considered for conviction, as it prejudices the accused.
While such irregularities can sometimes be cured by remanding the case for further examination, the Court deemed it unjust to do so after a lapse of over 14 years since the incident and considering the accused had already undergone over six years of incarceration and faced the prospect of capital punishment.
Unexplained Injuries to the Accused and Co-accused:
Adding to the doubts about the prosecution's narrative, the Court highlighted the "suppressed fact" that the accused himself suffered superficial to deep burn injuries (20% on face and forearms), and co-accused Aslam, who died, sustained 40% burn injuries. The prosecution's theory that the accused and Aslam were standing outside the room and preventing entry offered no explanation for their own significant burn injuries, raising further suspicion about the prosecution's version of events.
Upholding Acquittal in Absence of Legal Evidence:
Despite the gruesome nature of the crime, the Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, stating that the High Court's conclusion of the prosecution failing to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt was a "possible view" based on the evidence. The Court reiterated that even if another view were possible, it was not a sufficient ground to overturn an acquittal.
A Crucial Suggestion for Judicial Academies:
Before concluding, the Supreme Court made a vital suggestion to the National and State Judicial Academies. Lamenting the persistent failure in many criminal trials to properly record statements under Section 313 of the CrPC, the Court urged High Courts, at the earliest stage of an appeal against conviction, to examine whether the accused's 313 statement was properly recorded. If defects are found, the High Court should either record further statements itself or direct the Trial Court to do so, to cure the defect before the argument of delay and prejudice becomes available to the accused. This proactive approach, the Court emphasized, is crucial for upholding fair trial principles.
Section 313., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
