Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Gujarat Murder Case: Key Insights!

Published On - August 31, 2024

spatraadmin Daily Legal News

Case Title: Allarakha Habib Memon Etc. v. State of Gujarat
Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 345 : 2024 INSC 590
Date of Judgment: August 8, 2024
Judges: B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Reportable Case: Supreme Court of India

Related Video link:

https://youtube.com/shorts/ErsNt3d6NLw?feature=share

Facts of the Case:

  1. The incident occurred on May 4, 2011, involving the accused appellants, who were residents of New Memon Colony, Bhalej Road, Anand.
  2. A dispute arose over water supply, leading to a heated altercation on May 3, 2011, between accused Mohmedfaruk @ Palak and Mohammad Sohail.
  3. Following the altercation, Mohmedfaruk @ Palak conspired with Amin @ Lalo Aarifbhai Memon and Allarakha Habib Memon to eliminate Mohammad Sohail.
  4. On May 4, 2011, around 8:00 pm, the accused allegedly attacked Mohammad Sohail with sharp weapons at Bhalej overbridge.
  5. Mohammad Arif Memon (PW-11), the first informant, and cousin of the deceased, witnessed the assault and attempted to intervene.
  6. The accused fled the scene after the attack, abandoning their weapons.
  7. Mohammad Sohail was severely injured and later succumbed to his injuries at Krishna Medical Hospital, Karamsad.
  8. An FIR (Exhibit P-79) was lodged by Mohammad Arif Memon (PW-11) on the same day, leading to the arrest of the accused.
  9. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
  10. The High Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, leading to an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Law Points:

  1. Section 302 r/w Section 120B, IPC – Murder and criminal conspiracy.
  2. Contradictory Evidence – The evidence provided by eyewitnesses PW-11 and PW-12 was inconsistent and contradictory.
  3. Credibility of Witnesses – The court questioned the credibility of the star witness PW-11 and the police constable PW-12.
  4. Section 161, CrPC – Statements made to police not considered FIR if initial version was concealed.
  5. Section 162, CrPC – Prohibits the use of statements made to the police during investigation as FIR if it was not the first recorded statement.
  6. Section 27, Evidence Act – Disclosure statements made by the accused were not proved as per law and did not result in any admissible discoveries.
  7. Admissibility of Evidence – Confessions recorded by the Medical Officer (PW-2) were inadmissible as they were made in police custody.
  8. FSL Reports and Seizure Panchnama – Inadequate evidence linking the accused to the crime through forensic reports and improper seizure documentation.
  9. Article 136, Constitution of India – Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to interfere in concurrent findings of lower courts if evidence is improperly appreciated.
  10. Benefit of Doubt – Given inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence, the benefit of doubt was given to the accused.

Arguments by the Parties:

Appellants:

  1. The testimony of PW-12, who claimed to be an eyewitness, was unreliable due to significant contradictions and lack of evidence supporting his claims.
  2. The FIR should have been based on PW-12’s account, not PW-11’s later statement, making the latter inadmissible as it was hit by Section 162 CrPC.
  3. The identification of the accused for the first time in the dock after two and a half years without a Test Identification Parade was weak.
  4. The prosecution failed to produce the daily diary entry that would corroborate the presence of PW-11 at the crime scene, indicating suppression of evidence.
Respondent (State):
  1. The prosecution’s case was based on solid eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence.
  2. The FIR was filed promptly, and there was no reason for PW-11 to falsely implicate the accused.
  3. The prosecution presented enough circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
  4. Both the trial court and High Court had correctly appreciated the evidence and found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Case Laws Cited:

  1. State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu and Others – On the credibility and timing of FIR registration.
  2. Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others v. State of Karnataka – Regarding the significance of daily diary entries and the credibility of FIRs.
  3. Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan – On the reliability of evidence and statements made to police officers.
  4. Tomaso Bruno & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh – Importance of forensic evidence and proper recording procedures.
  5. Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab – On the reliability of dock identification without a prior Test Identification Parade.

Judgment Points:

  1. The Supreme Court noted significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of PW-11 and PW-12.
  2. The evidence presented was not sufficient to conclusively link the accused to the crime.
  3. The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
  4. The initial version of events, as narrated by PW-12, was suppressed, raising doubts about the prosecution’s case.
  5. The Supreme Court found the dock identification of the accused unreliable.
  6. The prosecution did not provide adequate evidence of the accused’s involvement in the conspiracy.
  7. The FIR based on PW-11’s statement was deemed inadmissible under Section 162 CrPC.
  8. The confessions recorded by the Medical Officer were inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act.
  9. The forensic evidence (FSL reports) did not conclusively support the prosecution’s case.
  10. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, giving them the benefit of doubt

 

  1. Related Reading:

  2. admin_judgement_file_judgement_pdf_2024_volume 8_Part II_2024_8_345-376_1725017790