Summary and Analysis of Jameela & Ors vs The State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 1121
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Title: Jameela & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Citation: 2025 INSC 1121 (Criminal Appeal Nos. 3641-3642 of 2025)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date of Judgment: September 15, 2025
Nature: Non-Reportable
2. Related Laws and Legal Provisions
The judgment deals with the following key legal provisions:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
Section 305: Abetment of suicide of a child or an insane person.
Section 506-B: Punishment for criminal intimidation by an anonymous communication or having taken precaution to conceal the identity or whereabouts. It prescribes imprisonment which may extend to two years.
Section 195-A: Threatening or inducing any person to give false evidence. Crucially, this section was inserted by an amendment in 2006 and was not part of the IPC at the time of the incident in 1999.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC):
Section 374(2): Provides for appeals to the High Court against convictions by a Sessions Court.
Section 394: Stipulates that every appeal shall finally abate upon the death of the accused, except for an appeal from a sentence of fine.Constitution of India:
Article 20(1): Embodies the protection against ex-post-facto law. It states that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of the commission of the act charged as an offence.
3. Basic Judgment Details
Appellants: Jameela (widow) and the children of the deceased-convict, Sheikh Akhtar.
Respondent: The State of Madhya Pradesh.
Subject of Appeal: Challenging the High Court's judgment that, while acquitting Akhtar of the major charge under Section 305 IPC, convicted him under Section 195-A IPC and maintained his conviction under Section 506-B IPC.
History of Litigation:
Trial Court (Sessions Court): Convicted Sheikh Akhtar under Sections 305 and 506-B IPC and sentenced him to 10 years and 2 years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.
High Court of Madhya Pradesh: Partly allowed Akhtar's appeal. It set aside his conviction under Section 305 IPC. However, it convicted him under Section 195-A IPC (a section not in force in 1999) and maintained his conviction under Section 506-B IPC, upholding the sentence.
Supreme Court: Heard the appeal filed by Akhtar's legal heirs after his demise.
4. Explanation of the Judgment
Background Facts
Sheikh Akhtar, a court official (Naib Nazir), was convicted for his role in the events leading to the suicide of a minor girl. The prosecution's case was that the victim was being molested by one co-accused, Munna. Akhtar, along with three others, threatened the victim with dire consequences, including killing her and her father, if she deposed truthfully in court against Munna. Unable to bear this pressure and to save her father, the victim set herself on fire on February 19, 1999, and succumbed to her injuries days later.
After Akhtar's conviction and subsequent death during the pendency of his appeal, his family continued the legal battle. Their primary motive was to clear his name to claim the terminal benefits from his over 30 years of government service, which were denied due to his termination following the conviction.
Core Issues Before the Supreme Court
Whether the High Court erred in convicting a deceased accused under Section 195-A IPC, a law that did not exist at the time of the offence, violating Article 20(1) of the Constitution?
Whether the conviction under Section 506-B IPC was sustainable based on the evidence on record?
What relief, if any, could be granted to the appellants regarding the terminal benefits of the deceased convict?
The Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning
1. On the Conviction under Section 195-A IPC:
The Supreme Court identified a fundamental legal error. The incident occurred on February 19, 1999. Section 195-A was inserted into the IPC only in 2006. Applying a penal law retrospectively to convict someone for an act that was not defined as an offence under that specific section at the time of its commission is a blatant violation of Article 20(1) of the Constitution. The High Court had completely overlooked this crucial timeline. Consequently, the Supreme Court had no hesitation in setting aside Akhtar's conviction under Section 195-A IPC.
2. On the Conviction under Section 506-B IPC:
The appellants argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses (PWs 3 and 4 - the victim's sister and mother) was inconsistent regarding the number of times the threat was made. The Court held that minor omissions in the FIR, given the traumatic circumstances, are not fatal to the prosecution's case. The core testimony of the witnesses consistently established that Akhtar was part of the group that threatened the victim.
The Court also dismissed the defence's alibi evidence (presented by DWs 3 and 4, Akhtar's colleagues who claimed he was in court all day) by relying on the Trial Court's findings, which had found this evidence not creditworthy enough to disbelieve the direct eyewitness accounts. The Supreme Court, after its own appraisal of the evidence, concluded that the charge of criminal intimidation under Section 506-B IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt against Akhtar. Therefore, it upheld his conviction under this section.
3. On the Terminal Benefits and Humanitarian Consideration:
This was the heart of the appellants' pursuit. The Court acknowledged that Akhtar was terminated from service based on his conviction for the grave offence under Section 305 IPC (which the High Court set aside) and the now-set-aside conviction under Section 195-A IPC. The only surviving conviction was under Section 506-B IPC.
The Supreme Court recognized the unique and tragic circumstances: a minor victim took her own life due to threats, and the convict's family was seeking not his freedom (as he was deceased) but the financial benefits earned from his long service. Exercising its authority to do complete justice, the Court issued a specific direction.
Conclusion and Supreme Court Directions
The Supreme Court:
Allowed the appeal in part.
Set aside the conviction and sentence of Sheikh Akhtar under Section 195-A IPC.
Upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 506-B IPC.
Made a humanitarian direction: It requested the Government of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider the matter of Akhtar's termination de novo (afresh), taking into account that the only surviving conviction is now under Section 506-B IPC. The State was directed to consider the financial status of the widow (Appellant No. 1) and take a decision, adopting a humanitarian approach, within three months from the date of the judgment.
Final Outcome: While the legal conviction under Section 506-B IPC stands, the Supreme Court provided the deceased's family a crucial pathway to potentially claim his terminal benefits by having the State reconsider the termination decision in light of the significantly altered legal scenario.
Blog Posts
