Ayyub Ali vs State Of Uttar Pradesh

NON-REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 568 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 13433 of 2024)

AYYUB ALI ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. ..... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

Learned counsel for the appellant, Ayyub Ali , the father of

the deceased, Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman, submits that this is a

case of honour killing, wherein the deceased, Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul

Rahman, was attacked with sticks and rods. The intention to commit

murder is also clear from the number and nature of the injuries

mentioned in the postmortem report.

We have examined the postmortem report, which records that

the deceased, Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman, aged 26 years, had

suffered 14 antemortem injuries on different parts of the body,

including several blows to the head. The report thus mentions

severe dural hematoma under the left parietal and frontal bone. The Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Deepak Guglani Date: 2025.04.25 10:58:40 IST cause of death is stated to be shock and haemorrhage. Reason: 1 SLP(Crl.) No. 13433/2024

In the chargesheet filed by the investigating officer, charges

were framed only under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 1

against the accused persons. The appellant, Ayyub Ali, had filed an

application before the Additional Sessions Judge, praying that the

charges should be framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of

the IPC instead. In his application, the appellant, Ayyub Ali,

submitted that the deceased, Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman, was hit

with sticks/rods and baseball bats, and at least 6 injuries were

suffered on soft parts of the body, including the head. The

appellant, Ayyub Ali, also submitted that the deceased,

Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman, had suffered dural hematoma on left

side of the head and the parietal and frontal bone was fractured,

and that these antemortem injuries had resulted in death.

While the postmortem report records the presence of dural

hematoma, it does not mention that the parietal and frontal bone

was fractured.

On the question of the place of occurrence, there is no doubt

or debate.

We find it surprising that the chargesheet was filed invoking

only Section 304 of the IPC, and that at the stage of framing of

the charge, the trial court also framed the charge only under

Section 304 of the IPC. The trial court made a cursory observation

that though the deceased had suffered 14 injuries, they were not

1 “IPC”, for short.

2 SLP(Crl.) No. 13433/2024

inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon or firearm but by sticks, etc.,

and therefore, there is no prima facie basis for framing a charge

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

While examining the aspects that the Court must take into

consideration while framing charge(s), in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v.

Mohd. Maqbool Magrey & Ors.,2 this Court observed that the Court

undoubtedly has the power to sift through and weigh the evidence

for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie

case is made out. When the materials placed before the Court

disclose a grave suspicion, which is not properly explained, the

Court would be justified in framing a charge and proceeding with

the trial. Specifically dealing with the question as to whether a

charge should be framed under Section 304 or Section 302 of the

IPC, it was observed as under: -

“33. Whether the case falls under Section 302 or 304 Part II, IPC could have been decided by the trial court only after the evaluation of the entire oral evidence that may be led by the prosecution as well as by the defence, if any, comes on record. Ultimately, upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record at the end of the trial, the trial court may take one view or the other i.e. whether it is a case of murder or case of culpable homicide. But at the stage of framing of the charge, the trial court could not have reached to such a conclusion merely relying upon the post-mortem report on record. The High Court also overlooked such

2 (2022) 12 SCC 657.

3 SLP(Crl.) No. 13433/2024

fundamental infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and proceeded to affirm the same.”

In this case, on the basis of the facts noted above, we find

that the charge should have been framed under Section 302 and not

under Section 304 of the IPC, as was erroneously done by the trial

court and subsequently affirmed by the High Court.

The impugned judgments of the High Court and the trial court

are accordingly set aside, and the appeal is allowed in the

aforesaid terms.

Fresh charge will be framed under Section 302 read with

Section 34 of the IPC, and the trial will proceed accordingly.

We, however, clarify that the observations made in the present

order will not be read as observations and findings on the merits

of the case. The trial will proceed in accordance with law and the

decision of the trial court would be on the evidence led and the

materials placed before it.

Keeping in view the nature of the allegations and the manner

in which the trial has proceeded, we direct the State of Uttar

Pradesh to appoint a Special Prosecutor to conduct the trial, after

consultation with the appellant, Ayyub Ali, the father of the

deceased. The said exercise will be completed within a period of

six weeks from the date a copy of this order is served on the Chief

4 SLP(Crl.) No. 13433/2024

Secretary, State of Uttar Pradesh. A compliance report to the

aforesaid effect will be filed in this Court.

It will be open to the private respondents, that is,

respondent Nos. 2 to 5, to move an application for grant of bail

before the trial Court in view of the amended charge. The said

application for bail will be considered on its own merits within a

period of three weeks from the date of filing. Till the application

is decided, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 need not be taken into custody.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

.................CJI (SANJIV KHANNA)

..................J. (SANJAY KUMAR) NEW DELHI;

APRIL 17, 2025.

5