Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanudding Amanullah, and AG Masih held that a delay in recording an eyewitness's testimony would not draw an adverse inference against the prosecution's case if the delay were adequately explained. 

• The Supreme Court held in the case of Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v. The State of Maharashtra (2025). 

What was the Background of the Firoz Khan Akbarkhan v The State of Maharashtra Case? 

• The case involves a murder that occurred on 19th April 2005, in a village setting involving multiple individuals. 
• The incident stemmed from tensions related to a relationship between Ramkala (the victim's sister) and a man named Rashid Kazi. 
• This relationship had apparently caused disputes in the village. 
• On the morning of 19th April 2005, around 9:00 AM, the victim (Sukhdeo Mahadeorao Dhurve) was in Gujri Bazar near a hair saloon. 
• Three accused individuals - Firoz Khan Akbarkhan (the appellant), Md. Jakaria, and Kalimkhan - approached the victim. 
• An altercation broke out related to the alleged relationship. 
• During the confrontation:  
  • Accused no. 2 (Md. Jakaria) caught the victim's collar. 
  • The appellant (Firoz Khan) took out a knife and stabbed the victim in the chest. 
  • Accused no. 2 also kicked the victim's chest and neck. 
  • Accused no. 3 (Kalimkhan) was present during the assault. 
• Immediate Aftermath: 
  • The victim sustained serious injuries and died at the scene. 
  • Many people gathered around as the victim was bleeding. 
  • The accused threw the knife at the scene and fled. 
  • The victim's sister (Ramkala) gave an oral report, which became the First Information Report (FIR). 
• The Trial Court initially convicted the appellant and accused no. 2 under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). 
• They were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. 
• Accused no. 3 was acquitted. 
• The High Court subsequently confirmed the Trial Court's conviction. 
• Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made the following observations: 

Regarding Witnesses and Evidence: 

• Consistent testimony from eye-witnesses about the appellant's presence and stabbing. 
• Minor discrepancies in witness statements do not undermine the overall prosecution case. 
• Delay in recording witness statements was explained by riots in the area. 

Regarding Intention: 

• The Appellant came with a knife, indicating pre-existing intention to cause bodily harm. 
• Not a case of sudden provocation, as the knife was already in the appellant's possession. 
• Rejected the argument to reduce the charge from Section 302 (murder) to Section 304-I (culpable homicide) of IPC. 

Regarding Remission: 

• Provided liberty to the appellant to apply afresh for premature release. 
• Directed the State to consider his case for remission based on the policy existing at the time of his conviction. 
• Instructed the State to pass a reasoned order within 3 months of the appellant's representation. 
• Procedural Guidelines for Remission: 
  • The State must exercise discretion reasonably and fairly. 
  • A convict cannot claim remission as a right. 
  • But has the right to have their case considered according to applicable policies. 
  • Conditions for remission must be reasonable and non-arbitrary. 
  • Considerations must respect constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 

What is Section 181 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023? 

Section 181: Restrictions on Use of Statements Made to Police During Investigation 

• Prohibition on using statements made to police during investigation as direct evidence. 
• No statement to police shall be:  
  • Signed by the person making it. 
  • Used directly at inquiry or trial. 
  • Recorded in police diary for evidentiary purposes. 

Contradicting Witness Testimony 

• Conditions for Use: 
  • Applicable when witness is called for prosecution. 
  • Statement must be duly proved. 
  • Can be used by:  
    • Accused (as of right). 
    • Prosecution (with Court's permission). 

Scope of Statement Usage 

• Contradiction Purposes: 
  • Use in manner prescribed by Section 148 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 
• Re-examination Limitations: 
  • Can be used only to explain matters raised in cross-examination. 

Exceptions to Restrictions 

• Statements falling under Section 26(a) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 
• Provisions of Section 23(2) proviso remain unaffected. 

Explanation: Omissions in Statements 

Significance of Omissions: 

• Criteria for Treating Omissions as Contradictions  
  • Must be significant. 
  • Must be relevant to the context. 
  • Determination is a question of fact. 

Evaluation Principles 

• Contextual Assessment: 
  • Importance of omission depends on specific circumstances. 
  • No blanket rule for determining contradiction.