Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, on March 24, 2025, upheld the conviction and life sentence imposed on a man for stabbing another man to death in 2005 after the deceased opposed his sister’s relationship with a person from the Muslim community. The court rejected the convict’s contention regarding discrepancies about the incident occurring during the riots and the two-to-three-day delay in recording witness statements.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that a delay in recording witness statements—especially when 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," the bench said.

The court pointed out that the two-to-three-day delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had been thoroughly explained by the witnesses, including the Investigating Officer. They stated that riots were ongoing in the area, and the Investigating Officer was engaged in maintaining law and order. Given these circumstances, the course of action adopted by the police could not be deemed unjustified, and no adverse inference could be drawn on this count, the court said.

Counsel for the appellant, Firoz Khan Akbarkhan, argued that there were discrepancies in witness statements regarding the occurrence of Hindu-Muslim riots immediately after the incident, as not all witnesses mentioned it. She also contended that neither the investigation nor the record established why the appellant would take the extreme step of killing the deceased over the alleged relations between the informant and Rashid Kazi, especially when no other motive or any connection between the appellant and Rashid Kazi had been proved.

The counsel further argued that the informant, a woman who claimed to be an eyewitness, stated that she was at some distance and had seen the incident. However, she herself mentioned that there were 100-150 people present, making it improbable that she could have actually witnessed the unfortunate incident from within the crowd. She contended that her statement was evidently tutored and deliberate to ensure the appellant’s conviction.

The counsel also pointed out that the appellant had no past criminal antecedents and should not have been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. At best, he should have been convicted under Section 304-I of the IPC, as the incident was not premeditated but occurred spontaneously. All eyewitnesses had admitted that an argument ensued, followed by blows and a scuffle, after which the stabbing, allegedly by the appellant, took place, the counsel argued.

"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 courts below have also concurrently found the same. The accused-appellant has not been able to controvert the evidence on record," the bench said.

The appellant also raised the issue of the informant not being examined as a prosecution witness.

On this, the bench said, "We need only point out that she was examined as a defence witness. The important factor is that she and her testimony were available to the Trial Court in its pursuit of truth. Thus, it does not matter as to whether she was produced as a witness from the side of the prosecution or from the defence."

The court noted that the pertinent aspect was that she was present before the Trial Court, allowing both the prosecution and the other accused the opportunity to cross-examine her, which was availed of. Her testimony remained consistent with the version in the FIR and aligned with the other eyewitness accounts, the court observed.

Regarding the alternative argument that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment following an altercation, the bench held that such a plea might have been relevant had the appellant not been armed with a knife. "It is not the case put up by either the prosecution or the defence that the appellant picked up a knife from or around the spot and then inflicted stabs."

The court emphasized that every eyewitness had consistently stated that the appellant inflicted the knife stabs on the deceased, which would only have been possible if he had the knife with him. This, the court said, clearly indicated prior intent to cause bodily harm using a weapon capable of causing death. "In other words, the intention to kill was very much present from the beginning and is not covered by any exception to Section 300 of the IPC," the bench said.

"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," the bench said.

The court, however, granted the appellant liberty to apply afresh with a detailed representation justifying his claim for premature release, considering his actual incarceration of over 14 years and, with remission included, over 20 years. The state government was directed to pass a reasoned order expeditiously and within three months.

The court accordingly dismissed the appeal.

On April 19, 2005, the accused-appellant, along with two others, inflicted stab wounds on Sukhdeo Mahadeorao Dhurve, who succumbed to his injuries on the spot. A quarrel had taken place the day before between the accused and the deceased over the alleged illicit relationship between the informant, the deceased’s sister, and one Rashid Kazi from the village.

Case Title: Feroz Khan Akbarkhan Vs The State of Maharashtra