[ad_1]
Supreme Court of India
Ayyub Ali vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 17 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar
Bench: Sanjay Kumar
SLP(Crl.) No. 13433/2024
NON-REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 568
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 13433 of 2024)
AYYUB ALI ..... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Learned counsel for the appellant, Ayyub Ali , the father of
the deceased, Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman, submits that this is a
case of honour killing, wherein the deceased, Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul
Rahman, was attacked with sticks and rods. The intention to commit
murder is also clear from the number and nature of the injuries
mentioned in the postmortem report.
We have examined the postmortem report, which records that
the deceased, Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman, aged 26 years, had
suffered 14 antemortem injuries on different parts of the body,
including several blows to the head. The report thus mentions
severe dural hematoma under the left parietal and frontal bone. The
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2025.04.25
10:58:40 IST
cause of death is stated to be shock and haemorrhage.
Reason:
1
SLP(Crl.) No. 13433/2024
In the chargesheet filed by the investigating officer, charges
were framed only under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 1
against the accused persons. The appellant, Ayyub Ali, had filed an
application before the Additional Sessions Judge, praying that the
charges should be framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the IPC instead. In his application, the appellant, Ayyub Ali,
submitted that the deceased, Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman, was hit
with sticks/rods and baseball bats, and at least 6 injuries were
suffered on soft parts of the body, including the head. The
appellant, Ayyub Ali, also submitted that the deceased,
Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman, had suffered dural hematoma on left
side of the head and the parietal and frontal bone was fractured,
and that these antemortem injuries had resulted in death.
While the postmortem report records the presence of dural
hematoma, it does not mention that the parietal and frontal bone
was fractured.
On the question of the place of occurrence, there is no doubt
or debate.
We find it surprising that the chargesheet was filed invoking
only Section 304 of the IPC, and that at the stage of framing of
the charge, the trial court also framed the charge only under
Section 304 of the IPC. The trial court made a cursory observation
that though the deceased had suffered 14 injuries, they were not
1 “IPC”, for short.
2
SLP(Crl.) No. 13433/2024
inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon or firearm but by sticks, etc.,
and therefore, there is no prima facie basis for framing a charge
under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
While examining the aspects that the Court must take into
consideration while framing charge(s), in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v.
Mohd. Maqbool Magrey & Ors.,2 this Court observed that the Court
undoubtedly has the power to sift through and weigh the evidence
for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie
case is made out. When the materials placed before the Court
disclose a grave suspicion, which is not properly explained, the
Court would be justified in framing a charge and proceeding with
the trial. Specifically dealing with the question as to whether a
charge should be framed under Section 304 or Section 302 of the
IPC, it was observed as under: –
“33. Whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304
Part II, IPC could have been decided by the trial court
only after the evaluation of the entire oral evidence
that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the
defence, if any, comes on record. Ultimately, upon
appreciation of the entire evidence on record at the
end of the trial, the trial court may take one view or
the other i.e. whether it is a case of murder or case
of culpable homicide. But at the stage of framing of
the charge, the trial court could not have reached to
such a conclusion merely relying upon the post-mortem
report on record. The High Court also overlooked such
2 (2022) 12 SCC 657.
3
SLP(Crl.) No. 13433/2024
fundamental infirmity in the order passed by the trial
court and proceeded to affirm the same.”
In this case, on the basis of the facts noted above, we find
that the charge should have been framed under Section 302 and not
under Section 304 of the IPC, as was erroneously done by the trial
court and subsequently affirmed by the High Court.
The impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial court
are accordingly set aside, and the appeal is allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
Fresh charge will be framed under Section 302 read with
Section 34 of the IPC, and the trial will proceed accordingly.
We, however, clarify that the observations made in the present
order will not be read as observations and findings on the merits
of the case. The trial will proceed in accordance with law and the
decision of the trial court would be on the evidence led and the
materials placed before it.
Keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the manner
in which the trial has proceeded, we direct the State of Uttar
Pradesh to appoint a Special Prosecutor to conduct the trial, after
consultation with the appellant, Ayyub Ali, the father of the
deceased. The said exercise will be completed within a period of
six weeks from the date a copy of this order is served on the Chief
4
SLP(Crl.) No. 13433/2024
Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh. A compliance report to the
aforesaid effect will be filed in this Court.
It will be open to the private respondents, that is,
respondent Nos. 2 to 5, to move an application for grant of bail
before the trial Court in view of the amended charge. The said
application for bail will be considered on its own merits within a
period of three weeks from the date of filing. Till the application
is decided, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 need not be taken into custody.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
……………..CJI
(SANJIV KHANNA)
………………J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 17, 2025.
5
[ad_2]
Source link