Supreme Court Holds New Penal Section Cannot Be Applied Retroactively, Upholds Threat Conviction And Directs Reconsideration Of Service Benefits

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal by the widow and children of a deceased former court employee challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s alteration of his convictions and seeking restoration of terminal service benefits. The appeals arose from convictions and sentences imposed after a Sessions trial and subsequent appellate proceedings concerning offences said to have led to a minor’s suicide.

The Court allowed leave to hear the appeal and delivered judgment on 15 September 2025. It held that the High Court erred in convicting the deceased under Section 195‑A IPC because that provision was inserted in 2006 and could not be applied to an offence committed in 1999, observing that such application would be "in clear breach of clause (1) of Article 20 of the Constitution of India." At the same time, the Court affirmed the conviction under Section 506‑B IPC for criminal intimidation, finding ample evidence that the deceased was one of those who threatened the victim. The Court emphasised the finality of the acquittal on the gravest charge (Section 305 IPC) as not being pursued by the State on appeal. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In our view, conviction of Akhtar under section 506-B IPC cannot be interfered with on any valid ground, although his conviction under section 195-A IPC by the High Court is unsustainable in law. Also, the respondent‑State not having carried acquittal of Akhtar for the offence under section 305 IPC in appeal, such acquittal has attained finality." The Court directed the State to reconsider the employee’s termination and entitlement to terminal benefits de novo, noting that "interests of justice would be best served" by a humanitarian approach to the widow’s financial position.

Background

The criminal proceedings arose from an FIR alleging that a minor victim had been molested by one accused (Munna) and that the deceased employee, along with other named persons, had threatened the victim and her father to force compromise. The victim set herself on fire on 19 February 1999 and died thereafter; a dying declaration was recorded by the Deputy Tehsildar (PW‑2), though the original was not on record. At trial, the Sessions Court convicted Sheikh Akhtar (then a Naib Nazir) under Sections 305 and 506‑B IPC and sentenced him to terms of imprisonment; his service was terminated following conviction. The High Court, in exercise of appellate jurisdiction, set aside conviction under Section 305 but convicted Akhtar, alternatively, under Section 195‑A and under Section 506‑B, and upheld the sentence.

On appeal to the Supreme Court by Akhtar’s widow and children, the principal legal question concerned the applicability of Section 195‑A IPC, which the Court found to have been inserted into the IPC with effect from 16 April 2006 and therefore not in force at the time of the 1999 offence. The Court held the High Court’s conviction under Section 195‑A to be unsustainable for violating Article 20(1). The Supreme Court independently examined the evidence on record because the High Court had not dealt with the Section 506‑B conviction in detail, and concluded that the prosecution evidence (notably PWs 2, 3 and 4) supported the finding that Akhtar participated in threatening the victim; the Sessions Court’s rejection of defence attendance evidence was not successfully assailed. The conviction under Section 506‑B was therefore maintained; the acquittal under Section 305 attained finality. Because the employee was deceased, the Court requested the State to reconsider termination and entitlement to terminal benefits in light of the limited surviving conviction, taking into account the appellants’ financial position and adopting a humanitarian approach, preferably within three months.

Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos.3641-3642 of 2025 Case Title: Jameela & Ors. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Advocates not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Advocates not indicated in the judgment]