Why Supreme Court upheld acquittal of man accused of murdering wife, three daughters

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld Allahabad High Court's decision to acquit a man who was accused of murdering his wife and three minor daughters by setting them on fire [Aejaz Ahmad Sheikh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another].A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah cited crucial lapses in the trial including failure to properly record the statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)."It is true that the incident is very shocking in which a woman and her three daughters were burnt, and one of them died on the spot, the other three died after a few days. However, in the absence of legal evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, we cannot interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court," the Court said..In 2008, one Amina and her three daughters — Najma, Fatima, and Salma — died of burn injuries allegedly inflicted by Amina’s husband, Hasim Sheikh and his cousin Aslam. The prosecution claimed that Hasim and Aslam poured kerosene on the victims and set them on fire. Aslam also sustained injuries in the incident and succumbed a few days later.The trial court in 2014 convicted Hasim after accepting the testimony of minor son and dying declarations of Amina and Fatima. Hasim was awarded death penalty. However, the High Court in 2015 reversed the conviction and acquitted him. The complainant , Amina’s brother, and the State of Uttar Pradesh filed criminal appeals against the acquittal..The top court noted that crucial prosecution evidence — especially the dying declarations of Amina and her daughter Fatima — was not put to the accused during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC."The prosecution has heavily relied upon the dying declarations of the two victims. As this evidence was not put to the accused in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, he was denied an opportunity to explain the same. Hence, this omission causes prejudice to him. Therefore, the evidence of dying declaration will have to be kept out of consideration," the Court said..However, it decided against remanding the matter for a fresh examination of accused under Section 313 CrPC."We are of the view that it will be unjust now at this stage to pass an order of remand for recording further statements under Section 313 of the CrPC. The remand at this stage will cause prejudice to the accused. Though we do not agree with some of the findings recorded by the High Court, it is not possible to find fault with the ultimate conclusion drawn by it.".The Court also said that trial court had failed to assess the competency of the accused's minor son to testify. "We may note here that before administering oath to PW-5, even preliminary questions were not put to him by the learned Trial Judge for ascertaining whether he is able to understand the questions put to him and is in a position to answer the same. The learned Judge should have asked preliminary questions to him to ascertain whether he understood the importance of the oath. The learned Judge ought to have recorded satisfaction that the minor was competent to depose. However, this was not done by the learned Judge. He straightaway administered oath to the minor witness," it said. .Meanwhile, Court highlighted a recurring issue of non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC in criminal trials and urged High Courts to conduct early scrutiny to identify such defects. If any defects are found, the Court noted they can be addressed by the High Court by itself recording further statement or directing the trial court to do so.“If this approach is adopted, the argument of delay and prejudice will not be available to the accused,” the Court observed..Advocates Shubhranshu Padhi (Amicus Curiae) with advocates Jay Nirupam D Girish Kumar, Pranav Giri and Ekansh Sisodia appeared for the the appellant/ complainant (Amina's brother).Advocates Anjani Kumar Mishra, Hardeep Kaur Mishra, Praveen Mishra, Rajesh Kumar Singh, Saurav Sharma and Krishna Gopal Mishra appeared for the accused.Advocate Anuvrat Sharma appeared for the State..[Read Judgment]