LexSTATE OF HARYANA versus RAM SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A STATE OF HARYANA v. RAM SINGH JANUARY IS, 2002 B [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860/Evidence Act, 1872-Section 302/Sections 3 and 27. Murder-Charges Framed-Prosecution case-Credibility of- C Contradiction between medical evidence and eye witnesses account- Evidence of availability of some bones at the place of occurrence not placed before the post mortem doctor for examination-Inconsistency between the date of the disclosure statement and the arrest of one of the accused-No independent witnesses to all the disclosures, discoveries and arrest-All eye witnesses relatives of the deceased-Trial Court finding the evidence trust D worthy convicted all the accused-High Court acquitted one of the accused giving him benefit of doubt and convicted the others-In the cross appeals, held, High Court rightly acquitted one of the accused but erred in not considering the evidence available on record in its proper perspective. E Criminal Trial: Medical evidence and eye witness account-Contradiction between. Post mortem report-Significance of-Report alone not substantive piece of evidence-Significance of evidence of doctor conducting post mortem lies vis-a-vis injuries appearing on the deceased 's body and the use of weapon- F Has to be corroborated from other prosecution witnesses. According to the prosecution, when the complainant and the deceased were together, two accused persons fired shots at the deceased on exhortation of the other two accused persons. Immediately, accused persons wrapped the deceased body in the blanket, put it in the jeep and went away. Thereafter, on G the statement of the complainant, FIR was registered. Accused persons were charged under Section 302 IPC read with 201 IPC. Trial Court convicted one -. of the accused under Section 302 IPC and all others under Section 302/149 and sentenced them to imprisonment. High Court acquitted accused- respondent in the first appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of all H the others. Hence these cross appeals. 208 .. STA TE OF HAR Y ANA. v. RAM SINGH 209 Disposing of the appeals, the Court A HELD : 1. Postmortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of the doctor conducting the postmortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis-a-vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon therefor and it would then be the prosecutor's B duty and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecution witnesses. [212-C-D] 2. In the instant case, medical evidence points out an injury having a downward stint and to two several gun shot injuries one from the front and one from the back. Eye-witnesses' account records that the two accused fired C shots each from their respective guns which does not, however obtain any support from the medical evidence, rather it runs counter thereto. Further, definite evidence of availability of some bones at the place ofoccurrence was not produced and placed for examination before the postmortem doctor as to whether they can be co-related with that of the deceased person. Also only for D the ascertainment of the weapon used, the body of the deceased was referred for X-ray which was not shown to the doctor till the date of examination or even produced before the court. The Serological Report of these bones did not see the light; neither the Ballistic Experts' Report as to the nature of the weapons used. It is a duty cast on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubts. It is the same prosecutor, who E has recovered the pieces of bones, had it exhibited but not produced before the postmortem doctor, who would otherwise be able to identify the bones as that of the deceased. This failure of the prosecution cannot be taken as a mere omission but a failure which would go a long way in the matter of reposing confidence thereon. [218-A-B-C-D; 219-8-C-EI p 3. High Court has dealt with the issue that the thumb marked disclosure statements, of the accused-respondent in the first appeal, dated 29.2.1992 casts a lot of doubt as to the involvement of accused-respondent since he was arrested only on 13.2.1992 and as such his disclosure statement of29.l.1992 cannot be had. High Court noticed this inconsistency and acquitted the accused at G wh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.