LexMACHINDRA versus SAJJAN GALFA RANKHAMB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2017] 3 S.C.R. 363
MACHINDRA
'A
v.
SAJJAN GALFA RANKHAMB & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No.1794 of2013)
APRIL 19, 2017
B
. [PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s.302 rlw s.34 - Murder - Parties are
close relative_s gs t:espondent no. l is brother-in-{aw of appellant
and respondent no.2 is the son of respondentno.1 -Allegation that C
respondents no.1 & 2 killed son of appellanr- Respondents
convicted by 1Trial court - But, acquitted by fligh Court - On appeal,
held:. There are. contradictions, in the depositions ofPW-4 and PW-
10 and neither of them is 'eye-witness to the alleged incident~ -
Prosecution had not examined 'one material witness in whose field
the alleged incident occurred - PW-3, who is an alleged eye-witness
D
to the incident was not on cordial terms with respondent-accused,
·further he fled away from t~e. spot as per his deposition .and came
to know about the death in the evening - Then there was six days'
delay in lodging the FIR which remained unexplained throughout
the trial - One last crucial fact is that opi~ion on the cause of E
injuries was neither mentioned by doctor PW-6 in his deposition,
nor in post-mortem report - Thus, not only actual but substantial
doubts as to the guilt of the respondents .:.. No evidence as to how
deceased.was killed and by whom - Therefore, no reason to interfere
with findings of the High Court.
Evidence - Medical evidence -Appreciation of - Held: Where
F
the medical evidence is such that it does not give any clear opinion.,· -
.·with respect to the injuries inflicted on the body of victim or deceased,
as the case may be, the possibilities that the injuries .might have···
been caused by; the accused are also ruled. out - Such medical ·
evidence is also very important in assess,ing the testimony of eye- . G
witnesses and in determining whether the testimony of eye-witnesses
can be safely accepted.
Evidence- Expert evidence '-Appreciation of - Held: ~xpert s
opinion should be demonstr.ative and should be supported by
..
H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2017] 3 S.C.R.
A
convincing reasons - If the report of an expert is slipshod,
inadequate or cryptic, and information on similarities or
dissimilarities is not available in the report of an expert then his
opinion is of no value.
Evidence - 'Burden of proof on the prosecution' - Principles
B
discussed.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 There are contradictions in the depositions of
PW·4 and PW-10 and none of them is eye-witness to the alleged
incident. Furthermore, PW-20 has proved in his deposition that
C he medically examined respondent Nos.1 & 2 on 21.04.2007 and
not on 22.04.2007 when they were arre.sted. The prosecution
had not examined one material witness in whose field the alleged
incident occurred. Non-examination of this material witness, who
could have unfolded the relevant facts of the case necessary for
D adjudication, makes the prosecution version doubtful. It is also
pertinent to mention here that PW-3, who is an alleged eye-
witness to the incident, had in his deposition admitted that he
passed the information on phone to one person who was never
examined by the Trial Court. After p_erusing the deposition of
PW-3, it is noticed that this witness and the respondent accused
E were not on cordial terms as their cattle used to enter the fields
of one anothe~ .and chapter case was filed against the wife of
accused on that count. [Para 12) [370-E-G)
.,
1.2 It is further noticed that there was six days' delay in
lodging the FIR which remained unexplained throughout the trial
F. and in the appeal before the High Court. One last fact which is
imperative and crucial to be mentioned here is that opinion on
the cause of injuries was neither mentioned by doctor PW-6 in
his deposition, nor in post-mortem report. In criminal cases
pertaining to offences against human body, medical evidence has
. G decisive role to play. A medical witness who performs a post-
mortem examination is a witness of fact though he also gives an -
._ opinion on certain aspects of the case. [Para 131(370-H; 371-A-
B)
2.1 In the post-mortem report, cause of injuries was not
H stated nor was any opinion formed to create independent
MACHINDRA v. SAJJAN GALFA RANKHAMB & ORS.
365
testimony. A vital role is played by the expert which is simply a A
conclusion drawn from a set of facts coming to his knowledge
and observation. Expert's opinion shoulExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.