Accused Acquitted Due to Prosecution’s Failure to Convincingly Establish Guilt

Overview: 

In a recent ruling of ‘Allahrakha Habib Memon Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat’, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused individuals in a case challenging the judgments of the Trial Court and the Gujarat High Court. The accused were previously convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Division Bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, concluded that the prosecution failed to provide convincing evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court acquitted the accused by giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Background:

The case originated from a dispute over water supply in the residential blocks of New Memon Colony, Bhalej Road, Anand, which escalated into an altercation. The altercation led to an indiscriminate assault with sharp-edged weapons by the accused. The victim, who sustained injuries to his head and chest, was transported to a hospital where he was declared dead. A complaint was filed by the victim’s first cousin, leading to the arrest of the accused five days after the incident. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 302, 323, and 120-B IPC.

The case was first heard by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Anand (Trial Court). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Upon examining the evidence, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000 each, and in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months. However, they were acquitted of the charge under Section 323 IPC. The Gujarat High Court upheld the Trial Court’s conviction and sentence, prompting the accused to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Court’s Assessment: 

The defence counsel highlighted several discrepancies, including the deliberate concealment of statements by the prosecution and the failure to produce the corresponding duty diary, warranting an adverse inference.

Upon reviewing the facts, the Supreme Court noted the unusual omission of a police constable’s statement who witnessed the incident and brought the crime weapons to the police station. This statement was neither recorded nor was the factum of the weapons’ presentation entered in the police station’s daily diary. The Court emphasized that this omission created reasonable doubt about the prosecution’s case.

The Court further identified that the first version of events narrated by the police constable should be treated as the First Information Report (FIR). It criticized the prosecution for concealing this initial version from the Court and questioned the timing and manner of lodging the FIR, which cast a cloud of suspicion over the prosecution’s case.

The Court referred to the precedent set in ‘State of A.P. Vs. Punati Ramulu, 1994’, which established that when a police officer does not promptly record an FIR upon receiving information about a cognizable offence, and instead prepares it after deliberations, the FIR cannot be treated as such and is inadmissible under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

Additionally, the Court scrutinised the testimony of a key prosecution witness (PW-12), who identified the accused in the dock nearly two and a half years after the incident. The Court deemed this identification unreliable and pointed out that the witness neither named nor described the accused’s features in his police statement. Therefore, the identification should have been conducted through a Test Identification Parade during the investigation, making the dock identification inadmissible.

The Court also found the “confessions” recorded by the Medical Officer during the preparation of the accused’s injury reports to be inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The Supreme Court noted inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses’ statements, creating reasonable doubt. The non-examination of independent witnesses further undermined the prosecution’s case.

The Court concluded that the disclosure statements made by the accused were not proved as per law, nor did they result in any admissible discoveries. The prosecution failed to establish a continuous chain of custody for the seized articles until they reached the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).

Conclusion: 

Exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court generally refrains from interfering with concurrent findings of lower courts. However, in cases where evidence is improperly appreciated, material aspects are ignored, and findings are perverse, the Court intervenes. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgments of the Trial Court and Gujarat High Court, and acquitted the accused persons.