LexFIROZ KHAN AKBARKHAN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 3 S.C.R. 933 : 2025 INSC 387 Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2013) 24 March 2025 [Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 is justified; whether he is entitled to remission of sentence. Headnotes† Evidence – Delay in recording statements of witnesses – When not fatal – Appellant alongwith other co-accused was convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 – Appellant inter alia contended that he was implicated in a false case as there was delay in recording of the statements of the witnesses: Held: Delay in recording witness statements is not always fatal to the prosecution’s case and the Court needs to examine such delay, if any, in the facts and circumstances of the particular case – Delay in recording witness statements, moreso when the said delay is explained, will not aid an accused – In the present case, the delay of 2-3 days in recording the statements of the eye-witnesses u/s.161, CrPC was thoroughly explained by the witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, to the effect that there were riots in the area – Thus, the Investigating Officer was involved in maintaining law and order in the affected area – No adverse inference can be drawn on this count – Furthermore, the presence of the appellant at the site of the incident and stabbing the deceased on the stomach repeatedly is established – Minor and immaterial inconsistencies/discrepancies do not harm the case of the prosecution – Prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt – However, on facts, appellant given liberty to * Author 934 [2025] 3 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports apply afresh for remission – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.161, 164 – Remission. [Paras 20, 21, 30] Penal Code, 1860 – Exceptions to s.300; s.304-I – Appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w s.34, Penal Code, 1860 – He alternatively argued that the incident occurred in the heat of the moment after an altercation on the spot – Present case if covered under any of the exceptions to s.300: Held: No – Appellant was armed with a knife – The intention to kill was very much present from the beginning – Every eyewitness stated that he inflicted the knife stabs on the deceased which could only have been possible if the knife was already with him indicating that he had come with prior intention to cause bodily injury by knife, a weapon sufficient to cause of death – Conviction cannot be converted from s.302, IPC to one u/s.304-I, IPC. [Para 23] Evidence – Informant-deceased’s sister not examined as a prosecution witness, but as a defence witness – Relevance, if any: Held: 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. [Para 23] Sentence/Sentencing – Remission of sentence – Law pertaining to – Discussed. [Paras 27-29] Case Law Cited Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra [1979] 2 SCR 94 : (1978) 4 SCC 371; Jagjit Singh v. State of Punjab [2005] 1 SCR 559 : (2005) 3 SCC 689; State of A.P. v. S Swarnalatha [2009] 12 SCR 289 : (2009) 8 SCC 383 – distinguished. Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2013] 5 SCR 744 : (2013) 4 SCC 557; Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab [2013] 9 SCR 547 : (2014) 12 SCC 473; Sunil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan [2005] 1 SCR 612 : (2005) 9 SCC 283; V K Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand [2025] 3 S.C.R. 935 Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. The State of Maharashtra [2015] 8 SCR 1 : (2015) 9 SCC 588; Goutam Joardar v. State of W. B. (2022) 17 SCC 549; State of Haryana v. Jagdish [2010] 3 SCR 716 : (2010) 4 SCC 216; Union of India v. V Sriharan [2015] 14 SCR 613 : (2016) 7 SCC 1; Bilkis Yakub Rasool v. Union of India [2024] 1 SCR 743 : (2024) 5 SCC 481; Mafabhai Motibhai Sagar v. State of Gujarat [2024] 10 SCR 1448 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2982; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj [1999] Supp. 4 SCR 286 : (2000) 1 SCC 247; Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary v. State of Maharashtra [2000] Supp. 3 SCR 104 : (2000) 8 SCC 457; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh [2011] 5 SCR 1 : (2011) 4 SCC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.