Supreme Court Bars Retroactive Use of 195-A IPC, Directs Humanitarian Relief for Deceased Employee’s Family

Case Name: Jameela & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Date of Order: 15.09.2025
Citation: Criminal Appeal Nos. 3641–3642 of 2025, 2025 INSC 1121
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih (DB)

Held: The Supreme Court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s conviction of deceased appellant Sheikh Akhtar under Section 195-A IPC, noting that the provision was inserted only in 2006 and was not in force at the time of the alleged offence in 1999. The conviction under Section 305 IPC (abetment of suicide of a minor) had already been overturned by the High Court, and the acquittal under this charge attained finality. However, the conviction under Section 506-B IPC (criminal intimidation) was upheld. Since Akhtar had died pending appeal, the Court directed the State Government to reconsider, on humanitarian grounds, whether his family should receive terminal benefits for over three decades of service, despite the surviving conviction.

Summary: Sheikh Akhtar, a Naib Nazir in the local court, had been convicted in 2007 under Sections 305 and 506-B IPC for allegedly threatening a minor girl, leading her to self-immolate in 1999. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment under Section 305 and 2 years under Section 506-B. His service was terminated following conviction. During pendency of his appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, he died in 2015. His widow and children pursued the appeal to secure terminal benefits.

In April 2024, the High Court acquitted him under Section 305 IPC but substituted conviction under Section 195-A IPC (threatening a witness) along with 506-B IPC. The family’s modification plea failed. Before the Supreme Court, counsel argued that Section 195-A was enacted in 2006 and could not be applied retrospectively to a 1999 offence.

The Court agreed, holding that the High Court’s reliance on Section 195-A IPC violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits retrospective criminal liability. However, evidence from prosecution witnesses (including the victim’s dying declaration, supported by her mother and sister) established that Akhtar had threatened the victim. Thus, conviction under Section 506-B IPC was sustained.

Decision: While dismissing the appeal on merits, the Supreme Court allowed it partly by striking down the 195-A IPC conviction. Acknowledging that Akhtar’s family pursued the appeal for financial survival, the Court directed the Government of Madhya Pradesh to reconsider de novo whether terminal benefits could be released, given that only a lesser conviction under Section 506-B survives. The Court emphasized adopting a humanitarian approach in evaluating the widow’s financial condition and liabilities, with the process to be completed preferably within three months.