LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH versus DHARKOLE @ GOVIND SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ST A TE OF MAD HY A PRADESH v. DHARKOLE @ GOVIND SINGH AND ORS. OCTOBER 29, 2004 B [ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] Criminal trial Medical evidence-At variance with ocular evidence-Weapon C supposedly used not sharp enough to cause irljuries as per medical evidence- Held: Hypothetical answers of medical witnesses pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive and accorded undue primacy to exclude credible and trustworthy eye-witnesses' account. Names of witnesses not appearing in FIR-That by itself cannot be D ground to do'1bt their evidence, especially as there is no requirement of mentioning names of all witnesses therein-Cr.PC-Sec. 154. Evidence E Witness-Non-examination by prosecution-If witness was not likely to support the prosecution version, his non-examination per se does not corrode vitality of prosecution version, particularly when the witnesses examin€d had withstood incisive cross-examination and pointed to the accused as perpetrators of crime-More so when prosecution gives reasons as to why it did not choose to examine that witness. F Eye witness account-Appreciation of-Minor points do not affect credibility of evidence and should not be magnified Probability amounting to proof and reasonable doubt-Discussed G · Appellate Court-Interference with acquittal by lower court-It should not be done lightly-However, if lower court has improperly analysed evidence, acted on surmises/conjectures, based its doubt on irrelevant grounds, ignored vital evidence or evidence accepted by Trial Court is rejected after a perfunctory consideration, it is duty of the appellate Court to set right the II 780 STATEOFMADHYAPRADESHv.DHARKOLE@GOVINDSINGH 781 wrong-Practice & Procedure. A Deceased got injured in a scuffle wherein accused used weapons like sword, gupti and stones. On being rushed to a local hospital, he was examined by a doctor PW 15 and was referred to another hospital where he was declared dead. Autopsy performed by doctor PW-5 found that deceased succumbed to his injuries. Trial Court convicted all the accused for offences punishable B under Section 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. However, High Court acquitted the accused holding inter alia that medical evidence was at variance with the ocular evidence as PW 15, the doctor, had stated that the Gupti which was supposed to be used was not sharp enough to cause the injuries. The High Court further held that evidence of eye witnesses could not be relied upon as C there were inconsistencies in their statements not only amongst themselves but also with ones given by them earlier during investigation. Hence the present appeal. Appellant submitted that the High Court has without any justiciable reason discarded the cogent and credible evidence of prosecution version; that D the medical evidence was not sufficient to discard the evidence of the three non-partisan and independent eye witnesses who had categorically stated about the manner in which the injury to deceased was caused; and that the prosecution had tendered evidence to show why examination of other persons was unnecessary. Respondent contended inter alia that the non-examination of the person who had claimed to be present as eye witness showed that there was great deal of doubt on the acceptability of prosecution version. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The case at hand is one where the High Court ignored the relevant aspects and unnecessarily put emphasis on certain aspects which did not have any foundation. Thus the judgment of the trial Court is restored. [788-H; 789-A) E F 2. It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical G answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye-witnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the "variable" keeping the medical evidence as the "constant". It is trite law that where the eye- witnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. (786-G, HJ H 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R .. A State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Anr., AIR (1988) SC 2154, relied on. Mathematics of Proof II: Glanville Williams: Criminal Law Review, 1979 by Sweet and Maxwell p340, referred to. 3. There is nothing unusual in the conduct of the eye witnesses. The B High Court has put unwarranted stress on certain aspects like the politic
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.