Sec.195-A IPC Not On Statute Book On Date Of Offence; Holding Accused Guilty Breach Of Article 20(1) Constitution: Supreme Court

The Appeal before the Apex Court revolved around a deceased public servant who was convicted in a case registered under sections 305 and 506-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence was carried in appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, but he passed away in the year 2015.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “Next, it has been contended on behalf of the appellants that the High Court grossly erred in convicting Akhtar under section 195-A IPC. The incident which resulted in unfortunate death of the victim, as noticed earlier, occurred on 19th February, 1999. Section 195-A IPC was inserted by Act No.2 of 2006 with effect from 16th April, 2006. As on date of the offence, section 195-A IPC was not on the statute book. The High Court, therefore, fell in error in not noticing the date of offence and the date of insertion of section 195-A in the IPC and proceeded to hold Akhtar guilty under that section in clear breach of clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India.”

AOR Anuradha Mishra represented the Appellant while Advocate Abhimanyu Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

Akhtar was a public servant prior to his conviction. He was the ‘Naib Nazir’ in the local court. He suffered an order of termination of service soon after the aforesaid conviction. The widow of Akhtar (Jameela) and their children (Amreen Khan, Naaz Khan, Aftab, and Shreen Khan) continued the appeal with the fervent hope that, if the conviction and sentence were 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.

The High Court, vide its judgment, held that Akhtar could not be held guilty for the commission of an 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. An application for modification of the judgment did not succeed. Aggrieved by the outcome of the appeal and the application before the High Court, the widow and children of Akhtar appealed to the Apex Court, whereupon leave was granted.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the offence alleged in the First Information Report lodged by the victim’s mother was that the victim had been molested by coconvict Munna. It was alleged that Akhtar, along with Munna and others, had been threatening the victim with dire consequences if she deposed in court against them. It was also alleged that the victim could not bear and withstand such a threat, for which she took the extreme step of putting an end to her life to save her father by setting herself ablaze in the year 1999. The victim, unfortunately, passed away.

The Bench found that the second incident of threat spoken to by the victim’s mother did not appear in the FIR. The victim’s elder sister had also deposed at the trial. When the victim had set herself ablaze and an attempt was being made to douse the fire, she had told her sister that while going to appear in court and while returning, Akhtar along with others had stopped her and threatened her that compromise must be made otherwise they would kill her and her father.

“True it is, PW-4 did not refer to the second act of threatening in the FIR. However, the omission is not considered too material. PW-4, we can presume, must have been under severe emotional stress when information of the offence was given to the police. That apart, it is not the requirement of law that an FIR while disclosing a cognizable offence must also reveal all facts preceding and following the incident of offence with precision. Having considered the contentions and looking at the materials on record, we do not see reason to hold that the inconsistency, as pointed out, is such that the same would lead us to discredit the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 that Akhtar, along with the co-convicts, had not threatened the victim”, it held.

The Bench was in agreement with the appellants that the High Court could not have found Akhtar guilty of Section 195-A IPC. “Considering the evidence on record and in view of our discussions as above relatable to the evidence of PWs 2, 3 and 4, we have no hesitation in holding that Akhtar was one of four who threatened the victim and, therefore, his conviction under section 506-B warrants no interference”, it added.

The Bench found that Akhtar’s service was terminated on consideration of his conviction not only for the offence under section 506-B IPC but also the graver offence under section 305 thereof. “...interests of justice would be best served if the respondent-State considers the matter of termination of service of Akhtar de novo and decides, whether for his conviction only under section 506-B IPC, the right to terminal benefits accruing for rendering three decades of service would stand forfeited for all times to come”, it held.

The Bench disposed of the Petition by requesting the appropriate department in the Government of Madhya Pradesh to effect consideration of the matter upon taking into account the financial status of the appellant and her liability, if any, adopting a humanitarian approach.

Cause Title: Jameela v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1121)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Anuradha Mishra, Advocates Arvind Kumar, Saurabh Tripathi, Ankit Kumar Vats

Respondent: Advocates Abhimanyu Singh, Gautam Singh, Aditya Chaudhary, AOR Mrinal Gopal Elker

Click here to read/download Judgment