LexRAM SWAROOP versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2008] 5 S.C.R. 484 A RAM SWAROOP v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN Criminal Appeal No. 548 of 2008 B MARCH 25, 2008 (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860; S.302: Criminal trial: c Murder - Oral evidence vis-a-vis medical evidence - Testimony of - Accused and his accomplice attacked the deceased with a knife causing bleeding injury - Deceased succumbed to injuries - Fl.R. - Charge-sheet - Trial Court found accused guilty of committing murder of deceased and D sentenced him accordingly - Affirmed by High Court - Correctness of - Held: Oral evidence has to get primacy but. .,, medical evidence is basically opinionative - It is only when medical evidence ruled out a injury as claimed to have been inflicted as per oral testimony, the Court could draw inferences E - Medical evidence could be met to repel testimony of eyewitnesses only if it is so conclusive to rule out even the version of eyewitnesses to be true - Thus, discarding the testimony of eyewitness on strength of medical opinion not conducive to the administration of criminal justice - In the F instant case, there were certain minor variations in the evidence of PWs. 3 & 4, which do not, in any way, corrode the credibility of prosecution version - Hence, trial Court was • justified in placing reliance on their evidence holding the accused-appellant guilty - Eye-witnesses - Testimony of G According to the complainant, on the fateful day, when he was standing along with the deceased and another persons, on a trivial matter, accused-appellant and his accomplice attacked on the deceased. Appellant ,/; allegedly stabbed the deceased with a knife. The H 484 RAM SWAROOP v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 485 -. deceased fell down and taken to Hospital, where he was A declared dead. An FIR was lodged by the complainant. Matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed against the accused for committing the offence • punishable u/s.302 IPC and co-accused for committing the offence u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC. Trial Court convicted the B ~ accused for committing offence punishable u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him accordingly but acquitted the co- accused as evidence against him was not sufficient to convict him. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal thereagainst, which was dismissed by the High Court. c Hence the present appeal. Accused-appellant contended that the trial court and the High Court lost sight of the fact that PWs. 3 & 4 have not spoken the truth. The scenario described by them does not fit in with the prosecution version; and that the D ' manner of attack and infliction of injuries as stated by PWs 3 & 4 do not fit into the medical evidence. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 So far as the alleged variance between E medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, it is trite law that oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opinionative. It is only when the medical evidence specifically rules out the injury as claimed to have been inflicted as per the oral testimony, F then only in a given case the Court has to draw adverse inference. (Para - 8) [488-E] 1.2 It has now become axiomatic that medical evidence can be used to repel the testimony of eyewitnesses only if it is so conclusive as to rule out even G t~e possibility of the eyewitness's version to be true. A .... doctor usually confronted with such questions regarding different possibilities or probabilities of causing those injuries or post-mortem features which he noticed in the medical report may express his views one way or the H 486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 5 S.C.R. ,... A other depending upon the manner the question was asked. But the answers given by the witness to such questions need not become the last word on such possibilities. After all he gives only his opinion regarding such questions. But to discard the testimony of an - 8 eyewitness simply on the strength of such opinion expressed by the medical witness is not conducive to the ,. administration of criminal justice. (Para - 9) [488-G & H; 489-A & BJ Mange vs. State of Haryana (1979) 4 SCC 349; State of c UP vs. Krishna Gopal and Anr. AIR (1988) SC 2154; Ram Dev and Anr. vs. State of UP. (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 547; State of UP vs. Harban Sahai and Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 50 and Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha & Ors. (2003) 12SCC 606 - relied on. D 2. The trial court and the High Court have analysed in great detai
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.