Delay In Recording Witness Statements, When It’s Explained, Will Not Aid An Accused: Supreme Court Upholds Murder Conviction

The Supreme Court in a murder case, observed that the delay in recording witness statements moreso when the said delay is explained, will not aid an accused.

The Court observed thus in a Criminal Appeal filed by an accused against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the Judgment of the Trial Court was upheld.

The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih elucidated, “… stricto sensu, delay in recording witness statements, moreso when the said delay is explained, will not aid an accused. Of course, no hard-and fast principle in this regard ought to be or can be laid down, as delay, if any, in recording statements will have to be examined by the Court concerned in conjunction with the peculiar facts of the case before it. Our reading of the above shall apply on all fours to delays in the context of Section 164 of the Code.”

Senior Advocate Kiran Suri and AOR Nidhi appeared for the Appellant/Accused while AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande appeared for the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

The Appellant i.e., Accused No. 1 and two other co-accused were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). As per the prosecution case, in 2005, at night, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. Thereafter, the next day in the morning, the deceased went to the market and came near a hair saloon/shop. In the meantime, the three accused reached there and there was a hot talk between the deceased and the accused, on account of the alleged illicit relations between the deceased’s sister and a man of the village. Suddenly, the accused no. 2 caught hold of the deceased’s collar and then allegedly, the Appellant took a knife and inflicted blows by means of the said knife on his chest, while accused no. 2 kicked his chest and neck. Accused No. 3 was also present at the time of such assault and having sustained injuries, the deceased was bleeding.

It was stated that many persons gathered around the deceased while blood was oozing from his mouth. It was further alleged that the accused threw the knife at the site of the incident and fled from the scene. Unfortunately, the deceased died on the spot itself. The Investigating Officer (IO) received information about the incident and reached the site with police personnel, where he saw many persons damaging houses and beating each other up. The police managed to bring the situation under control and thereafter, an FIR was registered. The Trial Court convicted the accused nos. 1 and 2 and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. However, the accused no. 3 was acquitted and the Trial Court’s Judgment was confirmed by the High Court. Hence, this was challenged by the accused before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “To our mind, the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. Having carefully gone through the material on record, especially the depositions of the witnesses and upon a keen examination of the relevant aspects of the case, we find that the presence of the appellant at the site of the incident and him having stabbed the deceased on the stomach repeatedly has been the consistent stand of the PWs who were eye-witnesses.”

The Court was of the view that the accused-Appellant has not been able to controvert the evidence on record and reiterated that the minor and immaterial inconsistencies and/or discrepancies shall not harm the case of the prosecution.

“… the intention to kill was very much present from the beginning and is not covered by any exception to Section 300 of the IPC. This persuades us to refrain from converting conviction from under Section 302, IPC to one under Section 304-I, IPC. No fault can be found with the Trial Court and the High Court, which have rightly reached the conclusion that the appellant was guilty as charged”, it further noted.

The Court also remarked that as the Appellant has undergone more than 14 years and 10 months of actual incarceration and the contention that his case be considered by the provision/policy in vogue at the time of his conviction, if not, a more beneficial policy, could be applied.

“In this background, this Court gives liberty to the 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”, it added.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeal and directed the State Government to pass a reasoned Order expeditiously and latest within 3 months.

Cause Title- Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 387)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate Kiran Suri and AOR Nidhi.

Respondent: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocates Siddharth Dharmadhikari, and Sourav Singh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment