Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 528
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Firoz Khan Akbarkhan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2013
Decided On : 24-03-2025
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Nidhi, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Benefit of any exception to Section 300 of IPC cannot be given to accused in a case of intentional cold-blooded murder.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1)/3(5)] – Murder – Common intention – Conviction and sentence – Presence of appellant at site of incident and him having stabbed deceased on stomach repeatedly has been consistent stand of PWs who were eye-witnesses – Courts below have also concurrently found the same – Accused-appellant has not been able to controvert the evidence on record – Minor and immaterial inconsistencies and/or discrepancies shall not harm case of prosecution – It does not matter as to whether informant was produced as a witness from side of prosecution or from defence – Intention to kill was very much present from beginning and is not covered by any exception to Section 300 of IPC – Court refrains from converting conviction from under Section 302, IPC to one under Section 304-I, IPC – Appellant has undergone more than 14 years and 10 months of actual incarceration – Court gives liberty to appellant to apply afresh with a detailed representation justifying his claim to be considered for pre-mature release accounting for his actual incarceration of over 14 years and with remission included, of over 20 years. (Paras 20, 22, 23 and 30)
Facts of the case:
Trial Court convicted accused nos.1 and 2 for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. It sentenced the appellant and accused no.2 to suffer Imprisonment for Life and pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months each. Trial Court acquitted accused no.3. Conviction and sentence of the appellant has been confirmed by High Court by way of Impugned Judgment.
Findings of Court:
Appellant has undergone more than 14 years and 10 months of actual incarceration and contention that his case be considered by provision/policy in vogue at the time of his conviction, if not, a more beneficial policy, could be applied. In this background, Court gives liberty to appellant to apply afresh with a detailed representation. Upon such representation being filed, State Government shall pass a reasoned order expeditiously and latest within 3 months from the date of filing such representation, having regard to the position of law.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.
Heard learned senior counsel/counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal assails the Final Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Criminal Appeal No.92 of 2008, whereby the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and Judgment dated 23.11.2007 passed by the Adhoc District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in Sessions Trial No.143 of 2005, was upheld. Aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court.
THE FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. The appellant (accused no.1) and two other co-accused (accused no.2/Md. Jakaria and accused no.3/Kalimkhan)1[There is some inconsistency as far as the spellings of the names of the accused and witnesses are concerned, with slight variations in different record. However, these inconsistencies are irrelevant for the purposes of the present adjudication as the identities of the persons concerned is not in the realm of dispute.] were prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 3022[‘302. Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.’] read with Section 343[‘34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.’] of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). The case of the prosecution is that on 18.04.2005, at about 11.00 PM in the night, there was a quarrel between the accused and one Sukhdeo Mahadeorao Dhurve (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) at S.T. Stand, Village Hiwarkhed. Thereafter, on the fateful day, i.e., on 19.04.2005 at about 9.00 AM, the deceased went to Gujri Bazar and he came near a hair saloon/shop, which is in front of the shop of PW3 (Nandu Ganjre). In the meantime, the three accused reached there and there was hot talk between the deceased and the accused, on account of the alleged illicit relations between the informant Ramkala (deceased’s sister) and one Rashid Kazi of that village. Suddenly, accused no.2 caught hold of the collar of the deceased. The appellant took a knife and inflicted blows by means of said knife on the chest of the deceased, while accused no.2 kicked the chest and neck of the deceased. Accused no.3 was also present at the time of such assault. Having sustained serious injuries, the deceased was bleeding. It was stated that many persons gathered around the deceased while blood was oozing from his mouth. The accused threw the knife at the site of the incident and fled from the scene. Unfortunately, the deceased died on the spot itself.
4. PW7 (the Investigating Officer) received information about the incident and he immediately reached the site with other police personnel. He saw many persons gathered there, who were damaging houses and beating each other up. The police managed to bring the situation under control. The informant, sister of the deceased, gave an oral report, which culminated into the First Information Report being Crime No.61 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR’), lodged at Morshi Police Station.
5. The informant stated that she was married to one Gajanan with whom she had three children - one female and two males. She stated that she started residing separately from her husband on account of dispute(s) between them. She further stated that due to her (then) on-going relationship with Rashid Kazi, which had caused tension and disputes in the village, in the night of 18.04.2005, a quarrel occurred between her brother and the accused over her relationship with the said Rashid Kazi. The very next morning, on 19.04.2005, the accused alleg
