Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Background
In a deeply tragic incident, the accused's wife Amina and three daughters died from burn injuries after allegedly being doused in kerosene and set on fire by the accused and his cousin, who also died from burns sustained in the incident. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to death based on a minor son's eyewitness account and dying declarations of the wife and one daughter, but the Allahabad High Court acquitted him on appeal. The complainant (the wife's brother) and the State appealed the acquittal to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal. It found the minor eyewitness's testimony unreliable because the Trial Judge never verified the child's competency to testify before recording his evidence, and his account contradicted his earlier police statement on key points. More seriously, the crucial dying declarations of the wife and daughter were never put to the accused for his explanation during his statutory examination under Section 313 CrPC: a defect the Court held could not be cured after a lapse of more than 14 years without causing further prejudice to the accused. Unexplained burn injuries suffered by the accused himself and his co-accused cousin further cast doubt on the prosecution's version. The Court reiterated that an appellate court will not overturn an acquittal simply because another view of the evidence is also possible, and separately flagged, for wider judicial attention, the recurring problem of trial courts failing to properly put material evidence to the accused under Section 313.
Lesson Learnt
A criminal conviction cannot rest on evidence, such as a dying declaration, that was never put to the accused for his response during his Section 313 CrPC examination; and courts must carefully verify a child witness's competency before relying on their testimony, since minors are especially susceptible to tutoring and inconsistency.