Criminal appeal before the Supreme Court, challenging a conviction for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant, Firoz Khan Akbarkhan, was found guilty by the Trial Court and the High Court for the stabbing death ofSukhdeoMahadeoraoDhurve. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the prosecution successfully proved its case despite minor discrepancies in witness statements and delays in recording them, which were adequately explained by the presence of riots. Additionally, the court addressed the appellant’s request for premature release, clarifying the legal principle that remission policies applicable at the time of conviction, or a more benevolent policy, should be considered.
Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 – Murder – Conviction upheld – Deposition of eye witness – Appreciation of evidence – 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 – Minor and immaterial inconsistencies and/or discrepancies shall not harm the case of the prosecution – Delay of 2/3 days in recording the statements of the eye-witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been thoroughly explained by the witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, to the effect that there were riots in the area – On this score, the Investigating Officer was involved in maintaining law and order in the affected area – In the attendant facts and circumstances, the course of action adopted by the police cannot be termed unjustified and no adverse inference can be drawn on this count – Informant not having been examined as a prosecution witness but 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 pertinent aspect is that she was before the Trial Court, and the prosecution, or the other accused, had the occasion and the opportunity to cross-examine her, which was availed of – Her testimony has been consistent with the version in the FIR and in sync with the other eye-witnesses – Every eyewitness has maintained that the appellant inflicted the knife stabs on the deceased which could only have been possible if the knife was already with him, which clearly indicates that he had come with prior intention to cause bodily injury by knife which obviously is a weapon sufficient to cause of death – Intention to kill was very much present from the beginning and is not covered by any exception to Section 300 of the 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.
(Para 20 to 23)
Firoz Khan Akbarkhan V. State Of Maharashtra
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 387: (DoJ 24-03-2025)
