Background:

In the present case, Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh was accused of murdering his wife, three minor daughters, and cousin by setting them on fire, based on dying declarations and the testimony of his minor son (PW-5). He was convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court in 2014. However, the Allahabad High Court acquitted him in 2015, citing inconsistencies in evidence and procedural lapses, including improper recording of dying declarations and non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC (Now under Section 351 BNSS). The Supreme Court upheld the acquittal in 2025, affirming the importance of fair trial standards and due process.

Issues

• Whether the dying declarations relied upon by the prosecution were legally admissible and reliable to sustain a conviction?

• Whether the testimony of the minor child witness (PW-5) was credible and competent to be the basis for conviction?

• Whether non-compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC (Now under Section 351 BNSS) vitiated the trial and prejudiced the accused’s right to a fair defence?

• Whether the burn injuries suffered by the accused and his cousin introduced reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s version of events?

Observations:

The Supreme Court observed that:

• • The Court emphasized that the dying declarations were procedurally flawed and unreliable, lacking proper endorsement, not read back to the declarants for confirmation, and not presented to the accused under Section 313 CrPC (Now under Section 351 BNSS), thereby weakening their evidentiary value.
• • The minor child’s (PW-5) testimony was inconsistent and uncorroborated. Moreover, the court noted that no competency test under Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act was conducted, casting doubt on the reliability and admissibility of the statement.
• • The Court emphasized that there was clear non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC (Now under Section 351 BNSS), as key incriminating evidence was not put to the accused, violating his right to a fair defense and undermining the trial’s integrity.
• • The accused’s burn injuries and the death of his cousin Aslam raise serious doubts about the prosecution’s version, as these unexplained facts undermine the case’s overall credibility.
• • The Court refused to remand the case after 14 years, noting that such a delay would cause grave prejudice to the accused and violate fair trial principles.
• • The High Court’s acquittal was upheld as it was based on sound reasoning and proper reappreciation of evidence, and no perversity was found in its judgment.

Decision:

The Supreme Court laid down the decision as mentioned below:

• o The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the complainant.
• o The Court upheld the acquittal of Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh granted by the Allahabad High Court in 2015.
• o It held that:
• • The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• • There were serious procedural lapses, including non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC (Now under Section 351 BNSS) and unreliable dying declarations.
• o The evidence relied upon was insufficient and legally inadmissible.
• o The Court refused to remand the case for a fresh trial, citing inordinate delay and potential prejudice to the accused.

Why this case matters?

o Upholds fair trial rights by stressing strict compliance with Section 313 CrPC (Now under Section 351 BNSS).

o Clarifies that dying declarations must follow proper procedure to be admissible.

o Emphasizes that child witnesses require a competency test before reliance.

o Reaffirms the rule of benefit of doubt in criminal cases to protect the accused.

Laws related therewith:

Under Constitution:

Article 21: Guarantees the right to a fair trial as part of the right to life and personal liberty.

• - The Court emphasized that procedural lapses violated this fundamental right.

Under BNSS:

Section 351: Allows the accused to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.

• - Non-compliance was a key ground for acquittal in this case.

Under BSA:

Section 124: Relates to the competency of witnesses, including child witnesses.

• - The minor son (PW-5) was not tested for competency before his testimony.

Section 26: Deals with dying declarations as an exception to hearsay rule.

• - The Court found that the dying declarations in this case lacked procedural safeguards.

Judicial Precedents:

• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984): Landmark case on circumstantial evidence; laid down the five essential conditions for conviction based solely on such evidence.

• Vikramjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2006): Held that non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC (Now under Section 351 BNSS) regarding material evidence prejudices the accused and can vitiate the trial.

• Prem Singh v. State of Haryana (2009): Clarified that procedural irregularities in recording dying declarations can render them unreliable and inadmissible.