Trial Court and High Court Orders Set Aside; Fresh Murder Charge Directed to Be Framed and Special Prosecutor Appointed

A bench of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar heard the special leave petition arising from an appeal against the framing of charges in an alleged honour killing in Uttar Pradesh. The limited question before the Court was whether the trial court and the High Court erred in framing only a charge under Section 304 IPC when the post-mortem and material on record prima facie supported a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgments of the trial court and the High Court, and directed that fresh charge be framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Court noted its surprise that the chargesheet and the trial court had invoked only Section 304 despite the post-mortem recording 14 antemortem injuries including severe dural hematoma and several blows to the head. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 fundamental infirmity in the order passed by the trial court and proceeded to affirm the same.” The Court further clarified that “the observations made in the present order will not be read as observations and findings on the merits of the case.”

Background The appeal arose from the death of Ziyahur/Ziyahul/Ziaul Rahman, aged 26, who was attacked with sticks, rods and baseball bats and suffered 14 antemortem injuries on different parts of the body, including multiple blows to the head and a severe dural hematoma on the left parietal and frontal regions. The father of the deceased, Ayyub Ali, contended that the facts disclosed an honour killing and that the conduct and injuries disclosed an intention to cause death, warranting a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The investigating officer’s chargesheet, and the trial court’s order framing charge, limited the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC). The trial court recorded a cursory view that because weapons were blunt (sticks etc.), a prima facie basis for Section 302 did not exist; the High Court affirmed that conclusion.

The Supreme Court examined the post-mortem and the materials placed before the trial court and held that the exercise at the stage of framing charge required the court to sift and weigh material for the limited purpose of determining whether a prima facie case for a more serious offence existed. The Court relied on its recent precedent in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v. Mohd. Maqbool Magrey & Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 657, and found that the trial court and High Court had committed a “fundamental infirmity” by deciding the nature of the offence at the charge-framing stage based solely on the post-mortem. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments under challenge and directed that a fresh charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC be framed and the trial proceed on that basis.

The Court directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to appoint a Special Prosecutor to conduct the trial after consultation with the appellant-father; this exercise was to be completed within six weeks from service of the order on the Chief Secretary, with a compliance report to be filed in the Supreme Court. The private respondents (accused) were granted liberty to move the trial court for bail on the amended charge; such bail applications were to be decided on their merits within three weeks of filing, and until such decision they were not to be taken into custody. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: SLP(Crl.) No. 13433/2024 (Criminal Appeal No. of 2025) Case Title: Ayyub Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the order] For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the order]