Jameela vs State of Madhya Pradesh 2025 INSC 1121 - Art.20 Constitution - S.195A IPC

Case Name and Neutral Citation

• Case Name: Jameela & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1121

Coram (Judges)

• Justice Dipankar Datta
• Justice Augustine George Masih

Judgment Date

• Date: September 15, 2025

Caselaws and Citations

The judgment does not explicitly mention any other case laws or judicial precedents cited within the provided text. The focus is on the facts, evidence, and statutory interpretation relevant to this particular case.

Statutes/Laws Referred

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC):
• • Section 305 (Abetment of suicide of child or insane person)
  • Section 506-B (Criminal intimidation)
  • Section 195-A (Threatening any person to give false evidence) — noted as inserted by Act No.2 of 2006, effective from April 16, 2006
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC):
• • Section 374(2) (Appeals from convictions)
  • Section 394 (Abatement of appeals)
• Constitution of India:
• • Article 20(1) (Protection against ex post facto laws)

1. What was the initial conviction against Sheikh Akhtar and what happened to his appeal after his death?

Sheikh Akhtar was initially convicted by the Sessions Court in 2007 for offenses under sections 305 (abetment of suicide) and 506-B (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. He appealed this conviction to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. Akhtar passed away on April 23, 2015, during the pendency of this appeal. Ordinarily, the appeal would have abated (ended) due to his death. However, his widow (Jameela) and children continued the appeal, hoping that if the conviction was set aside, they would be entitled to his terminal benefits from over 30 years of public service, which were forfeited after his conviction and subsequent termination from service.

2. How did the High Court rule on Akhtar's appeal and what new charge was introduced?

The High Court, in its judgment dated April 25, 2024, set aside Akhtar's conviction under section 305 IPC. However, it found him guilty, in the alternative, of an offense under section 195-A IPC (threatening a person to give false evidence) and maintained the conviction under section 506-B IPC (criminal intimidation). The High Court consequently upheld the sentence imposed by the Sessions Court.

3. What were the core allegations against Akhtar and his co-convicts?

The First Information Report (FIR) alleged that Akhtar, along with co-convicts Munna, Bhadde, and Mamu Gudda, threatened a minor girl with dire consequences if she deposed in court against Munna, who had allegedly molested her. They threatened to kill her and her father unless they compromised the matter. The victim, unable to withstand these threats, tragically took her own life by setting herself ablaze on February 19, 1999, and passed away on February 23, 1999. The victim's dying declaration and testimonies of her mother (PW-4) and elder sister (PW-3) supported these allegations, detailing threats made on the day of the incident both on the way to and from court.

4. What was the Supreme Court's decision regarding the High Court's conviction under Section 195-A IPC?

The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in convicting Akhtar under section 195-A IPC. The critical reason for this was that the incident leading to the victim's death occurred on February 19, 1999, but section 195-A IPC was inserted into the statute book much later, with effect from April 16, 2006. Convicting Akhtar under a law that did not exist at the time of the offense was a clear breach of Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits ex post facto laws. Therefore, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under section 195-A IPC.

5. Did the Supreme Court uphold Akhtar's conviction for criminal intimidation (Section 506-B IPC)?

Yes, the Supreme Court upheld Akhtar's conviction under section 506-B IPC. While acknowledging the High Court's omission to independently discuss this conviction in detail, the Supreme Court, after examining the evidence on record, particularly the testimonies of PWs 2, 3, and 4 (the victim's dying declaration, her sister, and mother), found no reason to interfere with the finding that Akhtar was one of the four individuals who threatened the victim. The court concluded that his conviction under section 506-B was well-founded and warranted no interference.

6. What was the defence's argument regarding Akhtar's presence at the court, and how was it addressed?

The defence argued that Akhtar, who was a 'Naib Nazir' in the local court, was present at his workplace for the entire day on February 19, 1999, the day the threats were made and the victim set herself ablaze. Defence witnesses (DWs 3 and 4), including a court staff member and the Deputy Nazir, testified to his presence and produced the attendance register to support this claim. The appellants' counsel criticized the High Court for not considering this defence evidence. However, the Supreme Court noted that the Sessions Court had already considered and assigned good reasons for not finding this defence evidence credible enough to discredit the prosecution witnesses and warrant an acquittal. The Supreme Court also pointed out that the memo of appeal filed by Akhtar in the High Court did not raise any specific ground challenging the Sessions Court's evaluation of this defence evidence, suggesting it might not have been a point of objection during the High Court hearing.

7. What was the ultimate outcome of the appeal for Akhtar's surviving heirs?

While the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal by upholding Akhtar's conviction under section 506-B IPC (and setting aside the conviction under section 195-A IPC, with the acquittal for section 305 IPC having attained finality), it acknowledged the appellants' (Akhtar's widow and children) motivation for pursuing the appeal: to claim terminal benefits. Given that Akhtar's service termination was based on his conviction for both section 305 and 506-B, and now only the 506-B conviction remains, the Supreme Court requested the Government of Madhya Pradesh to re-consider the matter of Akhtar's service termination de novo. The Court specifically asked the government to decide whether, for his conviction only under section 506-B IPC, the right to terminal benefits accrued over three decades of service should be forfeited, adopting a humanitarian approach and considering the financial status and liabilities of the appellant no. 1 (Jameela).

8. What fundamental constitutional principle was relevant in setting aside one of Akhtar's convictions?

The fundamental constitutional principle relevant in setting aside Akhtar's conviction under section 195-A IPC was Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. This article enshrines the principle against ex post facto laws, meaning a person cannot be convicted for an act that was not an offense at the time it was committed, or subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the offense. Since the offense occurred in 1999 and section 195-A IPC was enacted in 2006, the High Court's conviction under this section was unconstitutional.