Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Jameela & Ors. – Appellants
VS.
The State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 3641-3642 of 2025
Decided on : 15-09-2025
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 305 and 506-B – Abetment of suicide and criminal intimidation – Conviction and sentence – Having regard to nature of offence proved to have been committed by deceased and also bearing in mind evidence on record revealing that a minor girl, to save her father, had to take extreme step of doing away with her own life, Court cannot extend provisions relating to release on probation to deceased, had he been alive – Dismissal of appeal, setting aside conviction under Section 195-A IPC but maintaining conviction under Section 506-B thereof, is obvious result – Accused is no longer alive – He left behind him appellants as his surviving heirs – Appellants have brought lis to this Court only for the purpose of staking a claim to terminal benefits that had accrued to deceased for rendering three decades of service – Since High Court has set aside conviction under Section 305 IPC and alternative conviction under Section 195-A thereof also stands set aside, only conviction against deceased for offence under Section 506-B IPC survives – Interest of justice would be best served if respondent-State considers the matter of termination of service of deceased de novo and decides, whether for his conviction only under Section 506-B IPC, right to terminal benefits accruing for rendering three decades of service would stand forfeited for all times to come. (Paras 30, 31, 32 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Sheikh Akhtar (since deceased) was convicted by Sessions Court in S.T. No.378/2005 for commission of offence punishable under Sections 305 and 506-B, Indian Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and two years, respectively, with fine together with default stipulations vide judgment and order dated 28th March, 2007.
Findings of Court:
Government of Madhya Pradesh requested to effect consideration of the matter as indicated in the preceding paragraph upon taking into account the financial status of the appellant no.1 and her liability, if any, adopting a humanitarian approach. Such consideration may be effected as early as possible, but preferably within three months from date.
Result : Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Sheikh Akhtar [Akhtar] (since deceased) was convicted by the Sessions Court in S.T. No.378/2005 for commission of offence punishable under sections 305 and 506-B, Indian Penal Code 1860 [IPC] and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and two years, respectively, with fine together with default stipulations vide judgment and order dated 28th March, 2007.
2. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence was carried in appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Bench, at Jabalpur [High Court] under section 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 [Cr.PC] by Akhtar in 2007 itself. During the pendency of the appeal, Akhtar passed away on 23rd April, 2015.
3. Prior to conviction, Akhtar was a public servant. He was the ‘Naib Nazir’ in the local court. He suffered an order of termination of service soon after the aforesaid conviction. In the normal course, the appeal preferred by Akhtar should abate in view of section 394, Cr.PC. However, the widow of Akhtar (Jameela) and their children (Amreen Khan, Naaz Khan, Aftab, and Shreen Khan) continued the appeal with the fervent hope that should the conviction and sentence be set aside, they would be entitled to the terminal benefits which had accrued to Akhtar by reason of his rendering more than 30 years of service.
4. Upon hearing the parties, the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 25th April, 2024 held that Akhtar cannot be held guilty for commission of offence under section 305 IPC; however, by reason of his acts of threatening the victim (a minor girl), Akhtar was guilty of the offence under section 195-A IPC. Accordingly, while setting aside the conviction under section 305 IPC, the High Court convicted Akhtar, in the alternative, under section 195-A IPC as well as section 506-B thereof and maintained the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court. The appeal was, accordingly, disposed of.
5. An application [I.A. No.12367 of 2024] for modification of the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2024 did not meet success. It was dismissed by an order dated 2nd August, 2024.
6. Aggrieved by the outcome of the appeal and the application before the High Court, the widow and children of Akhtar appealed to this Court whereupon leave was granted by us on 19th August, 2025.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent- State at some length.
8. The offence alleged in the First Information Report [FIR] lodged by the victim’s mother (PW-4) is that the victim had been molested by co- convict Munna; that, Akhtar along with Munna, Bhadde and Mamu Gudda had been threatening the victim with dire consequences if she deposed in court against Munna; that, Akhtar, Munna, Bhadde, and Mamu Gudda had threatened to kill the victim and her father, unless they compromised the matter; and that, the victim could not bear and withstand such threat for which she took the extreme step of putting an end to her life to save her father by setting herself ablaze on 19th February, 1999. The victim, unfortunately, passed away on 23rd February, 1999. While in hospital, the victim’s dying declaration was recorded by the local Deputy Tehsildar (PW-2). The dying declaration is, however, not on record.
9. From the version of PW-2, we find that the victim was threatened between 10-11 am of 19th February, 1999, while she was on the way to the court by Akhtar and the co-convicts.
10. According to PW-4, who was accompanying the victim while on the way to the court, Akhtar, Munna, Bhadde, and Mamu Gudda threatened them around 11 am. This matches with the version of the victim as spoken by her to PW-2 and supposedly recorded in the dying declaration. However, PW-4 went a step further. She deposed that while she had been away from the court to call a witness (Khima bai) leaving the victim alone in the court and ultimately brought Khima bai – in the interregnum, Akhtar and the co-convicts had again threatened the victim. This was heard by PW-4 from the victi
Abetment of suicide and criminal intimidation – Benefit of probation cannot be extended in heinous offences.
The Supreme Court held that a dying declaration must meet specific legal requirements to establish abetment of suicide, which was not satisfied in this case.
When eye witnesses establish the case, motive becomes unimportant.Minor contradictions are not fatal to prosecution case. When 7-8 persons form a group with a common intention of killing deceased, se....
The prosecution must establish credible evidence of cruelty and abetment for convictions under Sections 498A and 306 IPC; mere dissatisfaction in marriage does not suffice to substantiate claims.
The court ruled that the assault was unintentional due to sudden provocation, warranting conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of murder under Section 302 IPC.
The judgment establishes the requirement of mens rea for abetment under Section 306 of the IPC and the dependence of cruelty under Section 498A on the consequence of the indictee's acts.
(1) Abetment of suicide – It is impossible for any human to decide exactly how much instigation actually weighed in mind of person abated, when he committed the act or offence.(2) Instigation – Word ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
