Confession Recorded By Medical Officer When Accused Were Presented By Police Officers Inadmissible As Evidence: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court while setting aside murder convictions of two individuals observed that confession recorded by a Medical Officer while preparing the injury reports of the accused during police custody is inadmissible as evidence. The bench observed that such a confession is not an admissible evidence in view of the bar under Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.A bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta said that the confessions, on which trial court had heavily relied, were inadmissible as they were made when the accused were brought to the hospital by police officers after their arrest.“We find that these so-called confessions are ex-facie inadmissible in evidence for the simple reason that the accused persons were presented at the hospital by the police officers after having been arrested in the present case. As such, the notings made by the Medical Officer, Dr. Arvindbhai(PW-2) in the injury reports of Mohmedfaruk @ Palak and Amin @ Lalo would be clearly hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”, the court held.Section 26 stipulates that any confession made by a person in custody of a police officer cannot be proved against him unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. Prosecution case The appellants, residents of New Memon Colony, Bhalej Road, Anand, were involved in a dispute concerning the supply of water in their residential area. On May 3, 2011, during a meeting about this issue, an altercation occurred between appellant Mohmedfaruk @ Palak and one Mohammad Sohail. Following this, Mohmedfaruk @ Palak allegedly harbored a grudge against Sohail, leading to a conspiracy with the other appellants to eliminate him.On May 4, 2011, the appellants ambushed Mohammad Sohail and his cousin Mohammad Arif Memon while they were returning home. The appellants assaulted Sohail with sharp weapons, causing fatal injuries, while Arif was pushed aside. Sohail succumbed to his injuries and was declared dead at the hospital.An FIR was lodged by Arif Memon, leading to the investigation and subsequent arrest of the appellants. The charges were framed under Sections 302, 323, and 120B of the IPC.The Additional Sessions Judge, Anand on October 13, 2014 convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 120B of the IPC, sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000 each. However, they were acquitted of the charge under Section 323 IPC. The Gujarat High Court dismissed their appeals, prompting them to file the present appeal before the Supreme Court.ArgumentsThe counsel for the accused appellants highlighted discrepancies such as the delay in lodging the FIR, challenges to the credibility of key witnesses, and inconsistencies in evidence regarding the weapons and the timeline of events.The respondent-State asserted that the prosecution had corroborated eyewitness testimony and medical evidence supporting the charges. It emphasized that the FIR was lodged promptly, the attack was pre-meditated and violent, and the trial and High Courts had thoroughly reviewed the evidence before upholding the convictions.VerdictDemistalkumar, a police constable, testified as an eyewitness, reporting the incident and presenting the weapons at the police station. However, the Court noted inconsistencies as his statement was not recorded immediately, and he did not file a report. His identification of the accused in court was also questioned due to the lack of prior identification procedures. Meanwhile, the first informant's account was inconsistent with the FIR details, raising doubts about the authenticity and timing of the FIR, suggesting it may have been created later than claimed, the Court said.The Court observed significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of the first informant and the Head Constable and PSI that registered the FIR. The first informant claimed to have filed the complaint himself at the police station, while the PSI stated that the complaint was recorded orally at the hospital. The FIR lacks a time stamp for when it was recorded and reached the court, suggesting it might be a post-investigation document, the Court said.Further, the Court noted contradictions regarding Memon's presence at the crime scene, and his account was contradicted by independent witness. The Court pointed out Memon's failure to report details of the crime to the police constable at the scene and the absence of other key witnesses.Testimonies of other witnesses were also found unreliable, with discrepancies noted in their accounts. The confessions recorded by the medical officer were deemed inadmissible under Section 26 of the Evidence Act. The FSL reports linking blood on weapons to the deceased were found insufficient on their own, given the discrepancies in the weapon seizure process.Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court set side the trial court and High Court's judgments, and...

Confession Recorded By Medical Officer When Accused Were Presented By Police Officers Inadmissible As Evidence: Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags