SC Directed The Trial Court For Reframing Charges From Sec 304 To Sec 302 IPC In An Honour Killing Case

The Supreme Court of India heard the appeal in a matter between Ayyub Ali Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, and allowed the appeal for reframing of charges in a case where the charges against the accused person were framed under section 304 IPC. The Apex Court aside the judgments of both, the High Court and the Trial Court, and directed to reframe the charges against the accused persons from Section 304 (culpable homicide) to Section 302 read with Section 34 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). During the hearing the Apex Court expressed surprise that the initial chargesheet and the trial court had framed charges only under Section 304 considering the injuries sustained.

The case arose out of a criminal appeal in SLP(Crl.) No. 13433 of 2024. Appellant Ayyub Ali is the father of the victim, Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman. The appellant contented that this was a matter of honour killing in which the victim was assaulted with sticks and rods. The postmortem report documented 14 antemortem injuries on the 26-year-old victim, including some blows to the head causing severe dural hematoma. The cause of death reported was shock and haemorrhage. In spite of such findings, the chargesheet presented by the investigating officer charged only under Section 304 IPC. Emphasizing the extent of injuries Ayyub Ali moved the trial court requesting charges be rewritten from under Section 304 to Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

The trial court, nevertheless, charged the accused only under Section 304, on the rationale that the injuries, although there were many of them, were caused by sticks and not sharp weapons or guns, and therefore does not prima facie attracts charge of murder under section 302 IPC. The Supreme Court, nonetheless, observed that though dural hematoma was mentioned in the postmortem report, a parietal and frontal bone fracture alleged by the appellant was not mentioned and so also the place of occurrence was not disputed. Thus, Supreme Court found it surprising that charges were confined to Section 304 given the 14 injuries and severe head trauma documented in the postmortem report.

The Apex Court, referring to its decision in Ghulam Hassan Beigh vs Mohd. Maqbool Magrey & Ors (Click to Download), reiterated that at the stage of framing charges, the court's role is limited to sifting evidence to see if a prima facie case or grave suspicion is made out.

Critically, the Apex Court observed, drawing from Ghulam Hassan Beigh, that the crucial determination of whether a case falls under murder (Section 302) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II) can only be made by the trial court after evaluating the entire oral evidence presented during the trial. The Court emphasized that the trial court could not reach such a definitive conclusion merely relying on the postmortem report at the charge framing stage; both the trial court and the High Court were found to have overlooked this fundamental principle. Based on the facts presented, the Supreme Court concluded that the charge should have been framed under Section 302 from the outset.

The Apex Court clarified that its observations in this order do not constitute findings on the merits of the case, and the trial will proceed based on evidence. The State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to appoint a Special Prosecutor in consultation with the appellant. The accused were granted liberty to apply for bail before the trial court in light of the amended charge, with their applications to be considered on merit without immediate custody until decided.

Bench/Coram: Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar