The Supreme Court has overturned the murder convictions of two individuals, ruling that confessions recorded by a Medical Officer during the preparation of injury reports while the accused were in police custody are inadmissible as evidence. The Court emphasized that such confessions violate Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which bars the use of confessions made in police custody unless made in the presence of a Magistrate.
Judicial Bench Findings
A bench comprising Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the trial court had improperly relied on these inadmissible confessions, which were made when the accused were brought to the hospital by police officers. The Court stated that the notations made by the Medical Officer, Dr. Arvindbhai (PW-2), in the injury reports of the accused, Mohmedfaruk @ Palak and Amin @ Lalo, fall under the prohibition of Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Case Background
The appellants, residents of New Memon Colony in Anand, Gujarat, were involved in a dispute over water supply in their area. On May 3, 2011, during a meeting about this issue, an altercation took place between appellant Mohmedfaruk @ Palak and Mohammad Sohail. Allegedly harboring a grudge, Mohmedfaruk conspired with the other appellants to kill Sohail.
On May 4, 2011, the appellants ambushed Mohammad Sohail and his cousin, Mohammad Arif Memon, as they were returning home. Sohail was fatally assaulted with sharp weapons, while Arif was pushed aside. Sohail later succumbed to his injuries at the hospital.
An FIR was lodged by Arif Memon, leading to the arrest of the appellants. The charges were framed under Sections 302, 323, and 120B of the IPC.
Trial and High Court Proceedings
The Additional Sessions Judge in Anand convicted the appellants on October 13, 2014, under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 1,000 each. However, the appellants were acquitted of charges under Section 323 IPC. The Gujarat High Court later dismissed their appeals, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments by the Defense and Prosecution
The defense counsel argued that there were discrepancies in the case, including delays in lodging the FIR, challenges to the credibility of key witnesses, and inconsistencies in the evidence related to the weapons and the timeline of events. In contrast, the respondent-State maintained that the prosecution had adequately corroborated eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, arguing that the FIR was lodged promptly, and the attack was premeditated and violent.
Supreme Court’s Observations and Verdict
The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police constable who reported the incident and presented the weapons, as his statement was not immediately recorded. The Court questioned his identification of the accused, given the lack of prior identification procedures. Additionally, the first informant’s account was found inconsistent with the FIR, raising doubts about the timing and authenticity of the FIR.
The Court also highlighted contradictions in the testimonies of the first informant, the Head Constable, and the PSI regarding the lodging of the FIR, noting the absence of a timestamp, which suggested that the FIR might have been prepared after the investigation had commenced.
Further, the Court pointed out discrepancies in Memon’s presence at the crime scene and noted that his account was contradicted by an independent witness. Other witness testimonies were also found unreliable due to discrepancies in their accounts.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the Gujarat High Court, acquitting the accused.
Case no. – Criminal Appeal Nos. 2828-2829 of 2023
Case Title – Allarakha Habib Memon Etc. v. State of Gujarat