Can an appellate court lawfully convict an accused under a penal provision enacted after the offence without violating Article 20(1)?

LawSikho
September 18, 2025
Category: Supreme Court of India

Summary

Category	Data
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Number	Crl.A. No.-003641-003642 – 2025
Diary Number	56820/2024
Judge Name	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
Bench	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Precedent Value	Binding authority on ex post facto application of penal statutes
Overrules / Affirms	Overrules conviction under Section 195-A IPC Affirms conviction under Section 506-B IPC Acquittal under Section 305 IPC attains finality
Type of Law	Criminal law; Constitutional prohibition on retrospective penal legislation (Article 20(1))
Questions of Law	Does applying Section 195-A IPC—inserted in 2006—to an offence of 1999 violate Article 20(1)? Must an appellate court separately discuss each conviction it affirms?
Ratio Decidendi	A court cannot convict under a penal provision not in force at the time of the offence without breaching Article 20(1)’s prohibition of ex post facto laws. When an appellate court substitutes or affirms convictions, it must ensure the charge existed when the offence was committed and must independently address each conviction. Omission to reason on a valid count (Section 506-B IPC) obliges the Supreme Court to examine the evidence afresh.
Judgments Relied Upon	None specifically cited in the text beyond constitutional provision
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court	Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India
Facts as Summarised by the Court	A minor was threatened on 19 Feb 1999 and self-immolated; Sessions Court convicted under Sections 305 and 506-B IPC; High Court acquitted under Section 305, convicted under Section 195-A (2006) and 506-B; Supreme Court reversed the 195-A conviction and upheld 506-B.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts
Persuasive For	High Courts and trial courts
Overrules	High Court’s conviction under Section 195-A IPC for offences pre-dating its insertion
Follows	Established Article 20(1) ex post facto jurisprudence

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Reaffirms that conviction under a penal provision enacted after the offence date violates Article 20(1).
Clarifies that appellate courts substituting convictions must apply only provisions in force when the offence was committed.
Emphasises the need for appellate courts to independently discuss each count they uphold or substitute.
Directs administrative reconsideration of service termination based solely on the valid conviction under Section 506-B IPC.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

The offence occurred on 19 February 1999; Section 195-A IPC was inserted only on 16 April 2006.
Applying Section 195-A to a 1999 offence violates the ex post facto prohibition under Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
The High Court’s failure to notice the date of offence and date of insertion rendered the conviction under Section 195-A unsustainable.
The appeal record showed challenge to convictions under Sections 305 and 506-B; the High Court omitted discussion on Section 506-B, requiring independent Supreme Court scrutiny.
Evidence (dying declaration and witness testimony) proved threats by the accused under Section 506-B IPC; this conviction is affirmed.
Acquittal under Section 305 IPC was not appealed by the State and has become final.
In light of the revised conviction profile, the State is directed to reconsider the deceased public servant’s service termination de novo.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners (widow and children)

High Court erred in convicting under Section 195-A IPC not in force at the time of the offence (violates Article 20(1)).
High Court neglected defence evidence showing the accused was continuously at his workplace and could not have threatened the victim.

Respondent-State

Conceded the error on Section 195-A conviction but supported the conviction under Section 506-B IPC, which remains unchallenged.

Factual Background

In February 1999 a minor girl, threatened by the accused and co-accused, set herself ablaze and later died. The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Sections 305 (abetment of suicide) and 506-B IPC (intimidation). On appeal, the High Court acquitted under Section 305, convicted under Section 195-A (1999 offence) and 506-B, and maintained sentences. The accused died during the appeal; his heirs continued the challenge. The Supreme Court set aside the Section 195-A conviction, affirmed Section 506-B, and directed reconsideration of service termination.

Statutory Analysis

Section 195-A IPC (criminal intimidation of a victim or witness) inserted by Act 2 of 2006, effective 16 April 2006.
Article 20(1) of the Constitution prohibits retrospective criminal laws.
Section 506-B IPC (threatening a victim or witness) was in force at the time of the offence.
CrPC Section 394: abatement of appeal on death; High Court permitted continuance by heirs.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.

Procedural Innovations

Supreme Court directs an administrative, de novo reconsideration of service termination and terminal benefits based on the revised conviction profile.
Highlights appellate courts’ duty to address each substituted count with independent reasoning.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms Article 20(1) prohibition on ex post facto penal statutes
🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Reverses High Court’s application of Section 195-A IPC to pre-2006 offences