CourtKutchehry

Supreme Court: Conviction Invalid If Offence Happened Before Law Came into Force

Bench sets aside conviction under Section 195-A IPC; says ex post facto punishment violates Constitution

Court upholds criminal intimidation charge; asks Madhya Pradesh to reconsider terminal benefits for deceased employee’s family

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi, September 17, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India has ruled that no one can be convicted under a criminal law provision that was not in existence at the time the alleged offence took place. The judgment reaffirms the constitutional safeguard against ex post facto criminal laws under Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the verdict on September 15, 2025, in an appeal filed by the family of a deceased court employee from Madhya Pradesh. The Court set aside his conviction under Section 195-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) — which criminalises threatening a person to give false evidence — because the provision was inserted into the IPC only in 2006, while the alleged offence occurred in 1999.

However, the Court upheld his conviction under Section 506-B IPC for criminal intimidation, finding sufficient evidence that he had threatened the victim.

Case Background

The case dates back to February 19, 1999, when a minor girl in Madhya Pradesh set herself on fire and died four days later. According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by her mother, the girl had been molested by a man named Munna. It was alleged that Sheikh Akhtar, a Naib Nazir (court clerk), along with Munna and two others, threatened the girl and her father with “dire consequences” if she testified against Munna.

The prosecution claimed that the threats were so severe that the girl took her own life to protect her father.

On March 28, 2007, the Sessions Court convicted Akhtar under Section 305 IPC (abetment of suicide of a child) and Section 506-B IPC, sentencing him to 10 years and 2 years of rigorous imprisonment respectively.

Akhtar appealed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court in 2007. He died in April 2015 while the appeal was pending. His widow, Jameela, and their children continued the case, hoping that an acquittal would restore his service benefits from over 30 years of government service.

High Court’s 2024 Decision

On April 25, 2024, the High Court acquitted Akhtar of the abetment of suicide charge under Section 305 IPC. However, it convicted him under Section 195-A IPC — a provision that did not exist in 1999 — and upheld the conviction under Section 506-B IPC.

The family challenged this before the Supreme Court, arguing that convicting someone under a law that was not in force at the time of the alleged offence was unconstitutional.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

For the appellants:

There were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the victim’s mother and sister about how many times threats were made on the day of the incident.
Other prosecution witnesses did not name Akhtar as one of the people issuing threats.
Most importantly, Section 195-A IPC was inserted into the IPC only on April 16, 2006, through the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005. Applying it to an alleged offence from 1999 violated Article 20(1), which prohibits retrospective criminal laws.

For the State:

The State did not defend the conviction under Section 195-A IPC.
It maintained that the conviction under Section 506-B IPC was valid and supported by evidence.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The bench agreed with the appellants that the conviction under Section 195-A IPC was “unsustainable in law” because the provision was not on the statute book in 1999.

Quoting Article 20(1), the Court emphasised that no person can be convicted for an act that was not an offence at the time it was committed, nor can a greater penalty be imposed than what was applicable at that time.

On the criminal intimidation charge under Section 506-B IPC, the Court found credible evidence from the victim’s mother and sister that Akhtar had threatened the girl. It noted that minor inconsistencies in witness statements did not undermine the core allegation.

The Court also rejected the defence witnesses’ claim that Akhtar was in court all day on the date of the incident, pointing out that the trial court had already found their testimony unreliable.

Final Decision

Conviction under Section 195-A IPC: Set aside as unconstitutional.
Conviction under Section 506-B IPC: Upheld.
Acquittal under Section 305 IPC: Already final, as the State did not appeal.

Humanitarian Direction on Service Benefits

Recognising that the family’s main motivation was to secure terminal benefits, the Supreme Court directed the Government of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider the termination of Akhtar’s service.

The Court noted that his dismissal was based on convictions under both Section 305 and Section 506-B IPC. With the more serious charge under Section 305 gone, the State should decide afresh whether a conviction only under Section 506-B warrants permanent forfeiture of benefits earned over three decades.

The bench urged the State to adopt a “humanitarian approach” and complete the process within three months.

Legal Significance

This judgment reinforces a fundamental constitutional principle: criminal laws cannot be applied retrospectively. It serves as a reminder to courts and prosecutors that:

New offences cannot be applied to past conduct.
Convictions must be based on laws in force at the time of the alleged act.
Article 20(1) is an absolute safeguard — there are no exceptions.

It also highlights the Supreme Court’s willingness to balance strict legal principles with humanitarian considerations, especially when the accused is deceased and the consequences affect surviving family members.

Case Details

Case Title: Jameela & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih
Date of Judgment: September 15, 2025
Key Provisions: Article 20(1) of the Constitution; Sections 195-A, 305, and 506-B IPC

In summary:

The Supreme Court has clarified that a person cannot be convicted under a law that was not in force when the alleged offence occurred. While upholding a lesser conviction for criminal intimidation, the Court struck down the retrospective application of Section 195-A IPC and urged the State to reconsider the family’s entitlement to service benefits.