Allarakha Habib Memon vs State Of Gujarat 2024 INSC 590 – FIR – S 26 Evidence Act

Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 154,161,162– When the police officer does not deliberately record the FIR on receipt of information about cognizable offence and the FIR is prepared after reaching the spot after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, such a complaint cannot be treated as FIR and it would be a statement made during the investigation of a case and is hit by Section 162 CrPC- Referred to State of A.P. v. Punati Ramulu 1994 Supp (1) SCC 590. (Para 29)

Criminal Trial -Sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused – Referred to Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724. (Para 43)

Indian Evidence Act,1872; Section 21,26,27- confessions of the accused recorded by the Medical Officer while preparing the injury reports of the accused -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, ) in the injury reports would be clearly hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872- As a consequence, we are not inclined to accept the said admissions of the accused as incriminating pieces of evidence relevant under Section 21 of the Evidence Act – The circumstance regarding identification of place of incident at the instance of the accused is also inadmissible because the crime scene was already known to the police and no new fact was discovered in pursuance of the disclosure statements. (Para 40-41)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *