A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case pertains to the conviction of the appellants under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murder of Mohammed Sohail. The Supreme Court scrutinized various inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, including the credibility of eyewitness testimonies and procedural lapses in lodging the FIR and preserving the chain of evidence. The Court ultimately acquitted the appellants, granting them the benefit of the doubt, and quashed the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

Keywords: Section 302 IPC, Eyewitness testimony, FIR inconsistencies, Acquittal, Conviction quashed

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Allarakha Habib Memon & Others v. State of Gujarat

ii) Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 2828-2829 of 2023

iii) Judgment Date: 08 August 2024

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta

vi) Author: Justice Sandeep Mehta

vii) Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 345 : 2024 INSC 590

viii) Legal Provisions Involved: Sections 302 and 120B of IPC, Sections 161, 162, and 313 of CrPC, Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case: None

x) Case is Related to: Criminal Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellants were convicted of murder and criminal conspiracy by the trial court and the Gujarat High Court. The incident arose out of a prior altercation over water distribution in the appellants’ housing society. The prosecution alleged that the appellants conspired and brutally assaulted the deceased, Mohammed Sohail, with weapons, resulting in his death. The FIR was lodged based on a complaint by PW-11, the cousin of the deceased.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The incident occurred on May 4, 2011, following an altercation over water supply issues in the society.
2. The deceased and PW-11 were attacked by the appellants using sharp weapons.
3. PW-12, a police constable, claimed to have witnessed the incident but did not lodge an FIR at the time.
4. The FIR was delayed and contained discrepancies about the presence and involvement of witnesses.
5. The appellants were convicted based on witness testimonies and forensic reports indicating the deceased’s blood group on the weapons.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the testimony of PW-11 and PW-12 was credible and reliable? ii) Whether procedural irregularities in lodging the FIR and preserving evidence undermined the prosecution’s case? iii) Whether the appellants’ conviction under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC was sustainable?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The appellants’ counsel argued the following:

1. Inconsistent Testimonies: PW-11 and PW-12 contradicted each other on material facts.
2. Procedural Irregularities: The first account of the incident, given by PW-12, was not treated as the FIR.
3. Delayed FIR: The FIR was lodged after undue delay, raising suspicion of fabrication.
4. Lack of Forensic Chain: The prosecution failed to establish a clear link between the recovered weapons and the crime.
5. Unreliable Identification: Identification of the accused for the first time in the dock was inadmissible.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The State countered with:

1. Eyewitness Testimony: PW-11 and PW-12 corroborated the incident.
2. Medical Evidence: The injuries on the deceased and PW-11 corroborated the attack.
3. Prompt Investigation: The FIR was registered promptly, and forensic evidence implicated the appellants.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court found significant procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, undermining the credibility of its evidence.

1. Testimonies of PW-11 and PW-12: The Court noted that PW-12’s testimony raised doubts about PW-11’s presence at the crime scene. Dock identification was considered unreliable without prior Test Identification Parade.
2. Delayed FIR: The Court ruled that the first report by PW-12 should have been treated as the FIR. The delayed FIR was deemed a post-investigation document.
3. Forensic Gaps: The absence of a secure chain of custody for the weapons and discrepancies in seizure reports weakened the prosecution’s case.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court observed that procedural diligence is paramount in criminal trials to ensure justice and prevent wrongful convictions.

c. Guidelines

The judgment emphasized the importance of:

• Prompt and accurate lodging of FIRs.
• Strict adherence to forensic protocols.
• Careful scrutiny of dock identification in the absence of Test Identification Parades.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The Supreme Court’s judgment underscores the necessity of prosecutorial integrity and procedural compliance in criminal cases. The acquittal reflects the principle that the benefit of doubt must favor the accused.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu, 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590
2. Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, [2024] 5 SCR 174

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302, 120B
2. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973: Sections 161, 162, 313
3. Evidence Act, 1872: Section 27