RAM BALI versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 195 · Decided: 16-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM BALI 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF UTT AR PRADESH 
APRIL 16, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial: 
Murder-Ocular evidence vis-a-vis medical evidence-Discrepancy 
between-Effect of-Absence of food in the;stomach of deceased-Evidentiary C 
value of-Held: The time taken to digest food varies from individual to 
individual, the quantum of food taken etc.-Empty stomach not a relevant 
factor to throw doubt about the correctness of the time of incident-Only 
when ocular evidence was wholly inconsistent with medical evidence, th,e 
Court must consider the effect thereof 
D 
Defective investigation-Effect of-Held: In the case of defective 
investigation Court must be circumspect in evaluating the evidence-When 
direct evidence corroborated by medical evidence fully established prosecutidn 
version, accused could not be acquitted merely on account of defective 
investigation. 
According to the prosecution, there was enmity between the family 
members of the complainant and the appellant-accused due to litigations 
and for that reason the appellant-accused had assassinated the deceased. 
The trial Court convicted the appellant-accused and the High Cous:t 
E 
affirmed the conviction. Hence the appeal. 
F 
On behalf of the appellant-accused, it was contended that the medical 
evidence was clearly at variance with the ocular evidence; that the 
deceased had taken lunch at 2 PM but the postmortem showed the stomach 
of the deceased was empty_ which proved that the incident took place G 
around 9 PM and not around 6 PM as alleged; that the investigation was 
defective inasmuch as the gun was not sent for forensic test; and that thF 
judgment was delivered long after the hearing was closed and, therefore, 
the arguments made before the High Court had not been properly 
considered. 
195 
H 
196 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The statement of as to what transpired at the hearing, the 
record in the judgment of the Court are condusive of the facts so stated 
and no one can contradict such statement on affidavit or by other evidence. 
If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been erroneously 
B recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter 
is still fresh in the minds of the Judges who have made record to make 
necessary rectification. That is the only way to have the record corrected. 
It is not open to the appellant to contend before this Court to the contrary. 
c 
(200-C-D) 
State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, (1982) 2 SCC 463, 
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 11 and 
Roop Kumar v. Mohan Thedani, (2003) 6 SCC 595, relied on. · 
2.1. The plea that the medical evidence is contrary to the ocular 
D evidence has no substance. It is merely based on the purported opinion 
expressed by an author. Hypothetical answers given to hypothetical 
questions, and mere hypothetical and abs.tract opinions by textbook 
writers, on assumed facts, cannot dilute evidentiary value of ocular 
evidence if it is credible and cogent. The time taken normally for digesting 
of food would also depend upon the quality and quantity of food as well, 
E besides others. It was required to be factually proved as to the quantum 
of food that was taken, atmospheric conditions and such other relevant 
factors to throw doubt about the correctness of the time of occurrence as 
stated by the witnesses. Only when the ocular evidence is wholly 
inconsistent with the medical evidence the Court has to consider the effect 
F thereof. (200-E.,.GJ 
Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of A.P., AIR (1985) SC 1715 and Nihal 
Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1965) SC 26, relied on. 
2.2. An author's view which is an opinion based on certain basic 
assumptions only cannot be a substitute for evidence let in to prove a fact-
which invariably depends upon varied facts, and according to the peculiar 
nature of a particula.r case on hand. (201-C) 
HWV Cox : "Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology" 7th Edn. pp. 
300-302, referred to. 
H 
3.1. In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be 
RAMBAL!v. STATEO~U.P. [PASAYAT,J.] 
197 
circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in A. 
acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would 
tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the 
investigation is designedly defective. 1201-D-EI 
Kamel Singh v. State of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.