Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Allarakha Habib Memon, Amin @ Lalo Aarifbhai Memon, and Mohmedfaruk @ Palak Safibhai Memon, upholding their conviction and life sentence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC. The case arose from a murder on 4 May 2011 in Anand, Gujarat, where the deceased Mohammad Sohail was attacked with sharp weapons following a dispute over water supply. The appellants conspired and executed the murder; the first informant Mohammad Arif Memon (PW-11) witnessed the incident and lodged an FIR. The trial court convicted them, and the High Court affirmed. On appeal, the appellants argued that the FIR was delayed and that the statement of Demistalkumar (PW-12), who reached the police station first with weapons, should have been treated as the FIR. They also contended that dock identification without a Test Identification Parade was unreliable. The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including the testimony of eyewitnesses and medical reports showing 29 injuries. The Court noted that while there were procedural lapses, such as non-production of daily diary entries and failure to record Demistalkumar's statement as FIR, the overall evidence, including the conspiracy and multiple injuries, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Conspiracy - Sections 302, 120B IPC - Conviction upheld - Appellants convicted for murder of Mohammad Sohail pursuant to a conspiracy - Trial court and High Court found evidence of conspiracy and multiple injuries sufficient - Held that conviction based on credible eyewitness and medical evidence is sustainable (Paras 2-8). B) Criminal Procedure - FIR - Delay in lodging - Non-production of earliest version - Sections 154, 173 CrPC - Statement of Demistalkumar (PW-12) who reached police station first with weapons not recorded as FIR - Adverse inference drawn for non-production of daily diary entries - Held that prosecution's failure to produce earliest information may affect credibility but does not vitiate trial if other evidence is strong (Paras 10.1-10.2). C) Evidence - Identification - Dock identification without Test Identification Parade - Weak evidence - Section 9 Evidence Act - Demistalkumar (PW-12) identified appellants in dock after 2.5 years without prior TIP - Held that such identification is unreliable and cannot be sole basis of conviction (Para 10.5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC is sustainable on the basis of the evidence on record, particularly in light of alleged discrepancies in the FIR and non-production of certain documents.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the conviction and life sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC.
Law Points
- FIR must be registered promptly
- statement of first person to reach police station may be treated as FIR
- dock identification without TIP is weak evidence
- adverse inference for non-production of daily diary entries
- conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence
