"Minor and immaterial inconsistencies and/or discrepancies shall not harm the case of the prosecution," observed the Supreme Court while ruling on an appeal challenging a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case arose from a fatal altercation in 2005, where the appellant was accused of stabbing the deceased over a personal dispute. The Supreme Court closely examined the reliability of witness testimonies, the impact of delay in recording statements, and the question of the appellant’s intent. It also deliberated on the appellant’s plea for premature release after nearly 20 years in custody.
The appellant challenged the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated 26.07.2012, which upheld his conviction and life sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Sukhdeo Mahadeorao Dhurve.
On 19.04.2005, at Gujri Bazar, Village Hiwarkhed, the appellant and co-accused confronted the deceased over a dispute related to the informant’s relationship with one Rashid Kazi. During the altercation, Accused No.2 held the deceased, while the appellant stabbed him in the chest, leading to his death on the spot.
Following an FIR by the deceased’s sister, the Trial Court convicted the appellant and Accused No.2, sentencing them to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction, prompting the present appeal.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The appellant argued that he had been falsely implicated due to community rivalry. He contends that witness statements were recorded with undue delay (2-3 days after the incident), raising doubts about their credibility. The appellant further claims that the deceased sustained injuries during a riot and that no reliable evidence links him to the crime.
The appellant highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies, including the failure to explain why bystanders did not intervene. He also argues that there was no established motive for the murder, as no connection between him and Rashid Kazi was proven. Additionally, he asserted that the incident was spontaneous and, at most, falls under culpable homicide (Section 304 IPC) rather than murder (Section 302 IPC). Given these doubts, he sought the benefit of the doubt and acquittal.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State contended that the appellant’s conviction was based on consistent findings by both the Trial Court and the High Court, with the prosecution proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. While minor discrepancies exist, they do not affect the overall reliability of the evidence.
The respondent emphasized that the appellant’s flight from the crime scene further establishes his guilt. The prosecution maintained that all circumstantial evidence supported the conviction and urged the Court to uphold the judgment and dismiss the appeal.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the prosecution had successfully proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It noted that the presence of the appellant at the crime scene and his act of repeatedly stabbing the deceased were consistently affirmed by eyewitnesses. It stated that "minor and immaterial inconsistencies and/or discrepancies shall not harm the case of the prosecution." Referring to State of Himachal Pradesh v. Lekh Raj, the Court emphasized that "whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution's case doubtful."
On the delay in recording witness statements under Section 161 CrPC, the Court found the explanation given by the police, relating to riots in the area, to be satisfactory. It clarified that "the course of action adopted by the police cannot be termed unjustified and no adverse inference can be drawn on this count." Distinguishing the present case from Ganesh Bhavan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, where delay in recording statements created "a cloud of suspicion", the Court stated that "mere factum of delay by itself cannot result in rejection of their testimonies."
Addressing the appellant’s plea of acting in the heat of the moment, the Court rejected the argument, stating that "he had come with prior intention to cause bodily injury by knife which obviously is a weapon sufficient to cause death." It concluded that "the intention to kill was very much present from the beginning and is not covered by any exception to Section 300 of the IPC."
On the issue of premature release, the Court noted that the appellant had already undergone nearly 20 years of imprisonment, including remission. It referred to State of Haryana v. Jagdish, reiterating that "a right to be considered for remission, keeping in view the constitutional safeguards of a convict under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India, must be held to be a legal one." It emphasized that if a more liberal remission policy is in force at the time of consideration, "he should be given benefit thereof."
Considering that the appellant had served "more than 14 years and 10 months of actual incarceration," the Court granted him liberty "to apply afresh with a detailed representation justifying his claim." It directed the State Government to pass "a reasoned order expeditiously and latest within 3 months from the date of filing such representation."
The decision of the Court:
The appeal was dismissed accordingly, subject to the observations and directions stated above. The original records were directed to be returned to the concerned Court(s) forthwith. I.A. No. 21892/2021 was dismissed as not pressed.
Case Title: Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. The State of Maharashtra …
Case no: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 257 OF 2013
Citation: 2025 Latest Caselaw 275 SC
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Nidhi
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande
Read Judgment @latestlaws.com, click here
