Case Name: Firoz Khan Akbarkhan vs. The State of Maharashtra

Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2013

Date: March 24, 2025

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Hon’ble Justice Augustine George Masih

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 

Firoz Khan Akbarkhan the appellant in the said case, was convicted for the murder of Sukhdeo Mahadeorao Dhurve. The incident occurred on the19th of April, 2005, following an altercation the previous night between the accused and the deceased over the alleged relationship between the deceased’s sister and another individual . On the morning of April 19, 2005, the appellant, along with two co-accused, confronted the deceased at Gujri Bazar, where the appellant stabbed him multiple times with a knife, leading to his immediate death. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

ISSUES

 

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the delay in recording witness statements affected the credibility of the case.
3. Whether the conviction should be altered from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 304-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).
4. Whether the appellant is entitled to premature release based on the remission policy.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

 

1. Section 302 IPC – Punishment for murder.
2. Section 34 IPC – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.
3. Section 161 CrPC – Examination of witnesses by police.
4. Section 432 CrPC – Power of appropriate government to remit sentences.

ARGUMENTS

 

Petitioner’s Arguments:

 

1. The appellant was falsely implicated due to communal tensions in the village.
2. The delay of 2-3 days in recording witness statements raises doubts about the credibility of the prosecution case.
3. Eyewitness testimonies were inconsistent and contradictory.
4. There was no premeditation, and at best, the act fell under Section 304-I IPC.
5. The appellant had served over 14 years of actual imprisonment and was eligible for remission under a more lenient policy.

 

Respondent’s Arguments:

 

1. The conviction was based on consistent eyewitness testimonies.
2. The delay in recording statements was due to riots in the area and did not affect the case’s credibility.
3. The appellant was carrying a knife at the time of the attack, indicating premeditation.
4. The remission claim should be considered as per the existing policy, which required 24 years (including remission) for premature release.

 

ANALYSIS

The Supreme Court found that the prosecution had proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The presence of the appellant at the crime scene and his act of stabbing the deceased were corroborated by multiple eyewitnesses. Minor discrepancies in their statements did not affect the core of the prosecution’s case. The Court rejected the argument that the delay in recording statements was fatal to the case. It observed that the delay was due to communal riots, and the Investigating Officer had provided a plausible explanation. Regarding the appellant’s plea to convert the conviction from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide (Section 304-I IPC), the Court noted that the appellant carried a knife, indicating prior intent. The act was not a spur-of-the-moment reaction but a deliberate attack; therefore, the conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified. On the issue of premature release, the Court acknowledged that the appellant had served over 14 years of actual imprisonment and more than 20 years with remission. Citing State of Haryana v. Jagdish (2010) 4 SCC 216, it held that the remission policy applicable at the time of conviction, or a more beneficial policy, should be considered. The Court allowed the appellant to apply for premature release, directing the State to reconsider his case within three months.

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The conviction under Section 302 IPC and life sentence were upheld.
2. The delay in recording witness statements was not fatal to the prosecution’s case.
3. The appellant’s claim for remission was allowed to be reconsidered based on the more lenient policy applicable at the time of his conviction.
4. The State was directed to decide on his premature release within three months.
5. The appeal was dismissed, subject to the observations on remission.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of eyewitness testimony and clarified that minor discrepancies do not dilute a well-established prosecution case. While dismissing the appeal, the Court ensured that the appellant’s right to remission was protected under the applicable legal framework. The judgment strikes a balance between ensuring justice for the victim and upholding the legal rights of the convict..

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer

lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY POOJA PARAMESWARAN