< Back
Supreme Court
‘Trial Court Made A Cursory Observation’:  Supreme Court Orders Fresh Charge Of Murder To Be Framed In Honour Killing Case In UP
Supreme Court

‘Trial Court Made A Cursory Observation’: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Charge Of Murder To Be Framed In Honour Killing Case In UP

Tulip Kanth
|
25 April 2025 9:06 PM IST

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the father of the deceased, challenging the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court.

The Supreme Court has ordered a fresh charge of murder to be framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC in an alleged case of honour killing after finding that the Trial Court and made a cursory observation.

The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by the father of the deceased challeging the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar remarked, “We find it surprising that the chargesheet was filed invoking only Section 304 of the IPC, and that at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court also framed the charge only under Section 304 of the IPC. The trial court made a cursory observation that though the deceased had suffered 14 injuries, they were not inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon or firearm but by sticks, etc., and therefore, there was no prima facie basis for framing a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

AOR Bhuwan Raj represented the Appellant while AOR Vishwa Pal Singh represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the appellant, the father of the deceased, that this was a case of honour killing, wherein the deceased, Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman, was attacked with sticks and rods. The intention to commit murder was also clear from the number and nature of the injuries mentioned in the postmortem report.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that as per the Postmortem Report, the deceased, Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman, aged 26 years, had suffered 14 antemortem injuries on different parts of the body, including several blows to the head. The report mentioned a severe dural hematoma under the left parietal and frontal bone. The cause of death was stated to be shock and haemorrhage.

In the chargesheet filed by the investigating officer, charges were framed only under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the accused persons. The appellant, Ayyub Ali, had filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, praying that the charges should be framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC instead. It was noticed by the Bench that the postmortem report recorded the presence of a dural hematoma but did not mention that the parietal and frontal bone was fractured.

The Bench also took note of the fact that the appellant, in his application, submitted that the deceased was hit with sticks/rods and baseball bats, and at least 6 injuries were suffered on soft parts of the body, including the head.The appellant also submitted that the deceased had suffered a dural hematoma on the left side of the head and the parietal and frontal bone was fractured, and that these antemortem injuries had resulted in death

Reference was made to the judgment in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey & Ors (2022), wherein it has been observed that when the materials placed before the Court disclose a grave suspicion, which is not properly explained, the Court would be justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial. “In this case, on the basis of the facts noted above, we find that the charge should have been framed under Section 302 and not under Section 304 of the IPC, as was erroneously done by the trial court and subsequently affirmed by the High Court”, it said.

Setting aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial court, the Bench allowed the appeal and directed, “Fresh charge will be framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and the trial will proceed accordingly.” The Bench also directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to appoint a Special Prosecutor to conduct the trial, after consultation with the appellant, the father of the deceased.

Cause Title: Ayyub Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 568)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Bhuwan Raj, Advocates Anubhav Mehrotra, Raman Singh, Manju Savita, Kriti Kumari, Aditya Narain Tripathy

Respondent: AOR Vishwa Pal Singh, Advocates Preeti Goel, Pooja Singh, Mukesh Kumar, Bharpur Singh, Abhinav Kumar Garg, AOR Divyesh Pratap Singh, Advocates Shivangi Singh, Amit Sangwan, Ashu Bhindwar, Vikram Pratap Singh, Suraj Prakash Singh

Click here to read/download Order


Similar Posts