CASE ANALYSIS –   AEJAZ AHMAD SHEIKH VS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.-APRIL, 2025

FACTS OF A CASE 

1. The case originated from the judgment of the High Court which acquitted Hasim Sheikh, accused of killing his wife, three daughters and cousin by setting them on fire. The tragic incident involved gruesome burn injuries leading to multiple deaths.

• Hasim Sheikh was charged under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for the murder of family members.

• Victims included Amina (wife), Najma, Fatima, Salma (daughters) and Aslam (cousin).
• The deaths were caused by severe burn injuries.

2. The accused, Hasim Sheikh and his wife Amina had five children. PW-1, Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh, Amina’s brother filed the complaint after witnessing ongoing abuse in the family.

• Hasim and Amina had three daughters and two sons: Najma, Fatima, Salma, Kamar Hasim, and Kadam.
• PW-1 visited the accused’s house on 26th December, 2008 to resolve domestic issues.
• Amina pleaded with PW-1 not to leave and feared a threat to her life.

3. Shortly after PW-1’s departure, a catastrophic incident happened where the accused and his cousin allegedly set Amina and her daughters on fire using kerosene.

• PW-1 received a call informing him about the incident hours after his visit.
• Najma died immediately at the scene due to burn injuries.
• Amina, Fatima and Salma were admitted to the District Hospital in critical condition.

4. The dying declarations of the victims played an important role in the case and was recorded by Tahsildar Harish Chandra Singh (PW-11) on the same day of the incident.

• Fatima stated her father and villagers poured kerosene and set them on fire and blamed her grandparents.
• Amina declared that the accused locked them inside, poured kerosene and lit the fire.
• These statements were essential pieces of evidence against the accused.

5. Following the incident the police initiated criminal proceedings based on PW-1’s complaint which led to the registration of First Information Report and subsequent investigation.

• FIR was registered on 26th December 2008 under Section 302, Section 307 and Section 120B of Indian Penal Code.
• Burnt clothes and a plastic can with 100 grams of kerosene were recovered from the crime scene.
• Salma died on 1st January, 2009, Aslam and Fatima died on 2nd January, 2009 and Amina died on 6th January, 2009 due to burn injuries.

6. The Trial Court, after carefully examining the evidence, convicted Hasim Sheikh of murder and imposed the death penalty. The Trial Court considered the brutality of the crime.

• The court relied on the testimony of PW-5 (minor son Kamar Hasim) and dying declarations.
• Hasim Sheikh was convicted on 19th April, 2014.
• The case was classified as “rarest of the rare,” warranting capital punishment.

7. The High Court acquitted Hasim Sheikh despite the judgment of the Trial Court. The High Court refused to uphold the death penalty or any conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

• The High Court refused to confirm the death sentence.
• It proceeded to acquit the accused completely.

8.  Aggrieved by the acquittal granted by the High Court, the State and PW-1 filed appeals before the Supreme Court seeking justice for the deceased victims.

• Criminal Appeal Nos. 2143-44 of 2017 were filed by the State.

• Criminal Appeal No. 2142 of 2017 was filed by PW-1.
• The Supreme Court appointed Shri Shubhranshu Padhi as Amicus Curiae to represent PW-1.

ISSUES

1. Whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused based on misinterpretation of evidence.
2.  The admissibility and reliability of Dying Declaration as the evidence against accused. 
3. The procedural irregularity in failing to put material evidence to the accused during his examination under section 313 of Criminal Procedural Code (CRPC)

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court laid down the decision as mentioned below:

1. The prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Failure to properly examine the accused on material evidence can result in acquittal.
2. The case involved the acquittal of the accused for the murder of his wife and three daughters by setting them on fire, with the evidence primarily relying on dying declarations and eyewitness testimony.
3. The trial court initially convicted the accused, but the High Court subsequently acquitted him, citing insufficient evidence and procedural irregularities, particularly regarding the failure to put material evidence, such as dying declarations, to the accused during examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
4. The evidence of a minor witness was scrutinized, emphasizing that a child’s competency as a witness depends on the ability to understand questions and give rational answers. The court noted that preliminary questions should be asked to establish this competency, which was not done in this case.
5. The validity of the dying declarations was questioned because they were not read over to the victims, nor were they put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. This omission was deemed prejudicial and a serious irregularity that could not be cured after a significant lapse of time.
6. The evidence regarding the dying declarations was excluded from consideration due to the procedural irregularity, and remanding the case for further examination was considered unjust given the long passage of time and the accused’s incarceration.
7. The court observed that the injuries sustained by the accused and co-accused, as well as the absence of explanation for certain injuries, raised suspicion about the prosecution’s case. The fact that the co-accused died from burn injuries further complicated the case.
8. After reappreciation of the evidence, the court found that the High Court’s conclusion that guilt was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt was a plausible view. The court emphasized that in the absence of legal evidence establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the order of acquittal should not be disturbed.
9. The court highlighted the importance of properly recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, especially in cases with voluminous evidence. It recommended that trial courts seek assistance from prosecutors and defence counsel to ensure all relevant material circumstances are put to the accused.
10. The court also stressed that, in appeals against conviction, the High Court should examine whether a proper statement under Section 313 was recorded at the earliest stage. Any procedural defects can be remedied at that point, preventing prejudice to the accused.
11. The appeals were dismissed, reaffirming the principle that in the absence of legally admissible and properly examined evidence, the order of acquittal should stand, even in cases involving heinous crimes.

COURT RESONING 

1. Validity of Dying Declarations
   – Recorded by a Tahsildar without endorsement that the victims were conscious and in a fit state to narrate; not read back to them; and, crucially, not put to the accused in Section 313. This prejudiced defence irretrievably.
2. Section 313 CrPC as a Constitutional Bulwark
   – Borrowing from Raj Kumar, the Court enumerated seven principles: every material circumstance must be distinctly put; default is a serious irregularity; may vitiate trial if prejudice shown; curable if detected early; appellate court can itself cure; remand possible; prejudice analysis is contextual. In Sheikh, 14 years had elapsed and accused had faced the spectre of death sentence—remand would be unjust.
3. Benefit of Doubt Regime in Appeals against Acquittal
   – Reiterated that if the High Court’s view is “possible”, Supreme Court will not interfere merely because another view is also possible (Art. 136 jurisprudence).
4. Systemic Directions
   – Judicial Academies to sensitise judges on practical compliance with Section 313 and usage of sub-section (5) (written questionnaire prepared with assistance of counsel).
   – High Courts to verify Section 313 adequacy at the admission stage of every criminal appeal, forestalling irreversible prejudice

REFERENCE 

1. https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/68076a2585981f240afa73ba
2. https://supremetoday.ai/doc/judgement/00100081260

This article is written by Verangana Rai from Chander Ptabhu Jain College and an intern under legal vidhiya

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.