Failure to Put Dying Declaration to Accused Under S.313 CrPC is a Fatal Flaw; Acquittal Upheld Despite Gruesome Nature of Crime: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Gruesome Quadruple Murder Case, Cites Fatal Procedural Flaw

New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld the acquittal of a man accused of burning his wife and three daughters to death, highlighting a critical procedural lapse by the trial court. A bench led by Justice Abhay S. Oka found that the failure to put crucial evidence, including dying declarations, to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was a fatal error that prejudiced his defence, making the conviction unsustainable.

The Court dismissed appeals filed by the State and the victim's brother against the High Court's judgment, which had overturned a trial court's order sentencing the accused, Hasim Sheikh , to death.

A Horrific Incident and Conflicting Verdicts

The case dates back to December 26, 2008, when Amina , the wife of the accused, and her three daughters—Najma, Fatima , and Salma —sustained fatal burn injuries in their home. The accused's cousin, Aslam , also died from burns sustained in the same incident.

The prosecution's case, primarily based on the testimony of the couple's minor son (PW-5) and dying declarations from the deceased wife Amina and daughter Fatima , led to a conviction. The trial court found Sheikh guilty under Section 302 of the IPC , labelling it a "rarest of the rare" case and awarding him the death penalty.

However, the High Court reversed this decision, acquitting the accused. This acquittal was then challenged before the Supreme Court.

Prosecution and Defence Arguments

The appellants, represented by the State and an amicus curiae, argued that the dying declarations recorded by a Tahsildar were reliable and corroborated by the powerful testimony of the minor son, an eyewitness. They contended that minor contradictions in the child's testimony were natural given the trauma he experienced.

The defence countered that the evidence of the dying declarations was never put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, depriving him of a chance to explain the circumstances appearing against him.

Supreme Court's Analysis: Procedural Safeguards are Paramount

The Supreme Court conducted a thorough reappreciation of the evidence and identified several major flaws in the prosecution's case.

1. Unreliable Child Witness Testimony: The Court noted that the trial judge failed to conduct a preliminary examination to ascertain if the 15-year-old son (PW-5) was competent to testify, a mandatory step for child witnesses. Furthermore, his testimony contained major contradictions compared to his initial police statement, where he had claimed not to know how the fire started. The bench concluded it was "unsafe to rely upon his evidence."

2. The Fatal Flaw of Section 313 CrPC: The cornerstone of the Supreme Court's decision was the trial court's glaring omission under Section 313 CrPC. The judgment stated:

> "The most unfortunate part is that the evidence of PW-11 about the dying declarations made by these two victims has not been put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of CrPC... As this evidence was not put to the accused... he was denied an opportunity to explain the same. Hence, this omission causes prejudice to him. Therefore, the evidence of dying declaration will have to be kept out of consideration."

The Court refused to remand the case for a fresh examination after a lapse of 14 years, deeming it unjust and prejudicial to the accused, who had already spent over six years in prison with a death sentence hanging over him.

3. Unexplained Injuries: The prosecution also failed to explain how both the accused and his cousin, Aslam , suffered significant burn injuries (20% and 40% respectively). This cast serious doubt on the prosecution's theory that they had set the victims on fire and were standing outside the room.

Final Verdict and Broader Implications

While acknowledging the "very shocking" nature of the incident, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's decision to acquit was a "possible view" based on the flawed evidence presented.

> "In the absence of legal evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court," the bench ruled.

In a concluding note, the Court lamented the recurring issue of defective Section 313 examinations in criminal trials and urged High Courts to scrutinize this aspect at the initial stage of appeals to allow for timely correction. It directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to all National and State Judicial Academies to emphasize the importance of this "salutary provision."