Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Ka-10 was taken, specimen of the seal Ex. Ka-11. Memo for recovery of the bicycle at the site, Ex. Ka-12, Memo Ex. Ka-13 for collecting ordinary and blood stained soil from the site. After completing investigations, charge sheet Ex. Ka-6 was filed against accused Vinod and Dinesh.

Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. During the pendency of the trial, accused Vinod died on 7.2.1994. Eight persons were examined to further the prosecution version. PWs. 1 to 4 were stated to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. During trial Om Prakash (PW 1) and Ram Dhan (PW 2) resiled from their statements made during investigation and, therefore, prosecution with the permission of the court, cross-examined them. The trial Court found the evidence of Sita Saran and Rajesh Kumar (PWs. 3 and 4) to be cogent and directed conviction as noted above. The respondent filed an appeal questioning the conviction as recorded. The High Court noticed discrepancies in the evidence of PWs. 3 and 4. PW 3 was related to the deceased while PW4 was his son who was aged about 10 years at the time of occurrence. The High Court noticed that motive is not of much importance when credible evidence is available. If found that the motive highlighted was too feeble to be of any consequence. Apart from that the High Court found presence of PW3 to be highly improbable. It noticed that there was no sign of dragging at the place of occurrence as was stated by PWs. 3 and 4 and also there was no injury which could be co-related with dragging. All the injuries noticed were either incised injuries or on account of firearm. The High Court found that both PWs 3 and 4 stated that respondent Dinesh and co-accused Vinod, who died, during trial fired one shot each from the guns held by them. The doctor who conducted post-mortem found that there was only one fire arm injury. To make up discrepancy PWs. 3 and 4 stated that certain empty cartridges and two live cartridges were found at the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer. But the Investigating Officer stated that he did not find either any empty cartridge or live cartridge at the scene of occurrence. It is to be further noted that both PWs 3 and 4 stated that while the deceased was being restrained by one hand each by the two accused persons, they shot him from the other hand. In other words, their version was that the accused persons fired at the deceased from a very short distance. The doctor's evidence clearly ruled out this aspect. He noticed that only skin deep injury was there and not any penetrating wound. PW.3 had stated that all the knife injuries were inflicted when the deceased was in a lying posture and according to Rajesh Kumar (PW.4) even at that time both the accused persons were catching hands of the deceased. The doctor found that all the injuries found on the deceased were incised wounds and not a single puncture wound was found on the deceased. The doctor further stated that there was no possibility of the incised injuries Nos.1 to 13 being caused to the deceased while he was lying on the ground.

To add to the vulnerability, the High Court pointed out that according to SI PW.7 Vishwanath Pandey inquest was completed around noon time and the dead body was sent to the Mortuary at 1.45 p.m. on 24.5.1991. According to PW.3 Sita Saran, she had accompanied the dead body to the mortuary. The post-mortem examination was, however, conducted at about 3.00 p.m. on 25.5.1991. From the perusal of the records the High Court noticed that the papers were received at the mortuary on 25.5.1991 around 12.30 p.m. The High Court found it improbable that only the dead body was purportedly sent but no documents were sent.

(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.

34. In the instant case the discrepancies highlighted by the High Court cannot be stated to be trival. The conclusions arrived at by the High Court clearly establish material infirmities and contradictions on the evidence of the two vital witnesses PWs. 3 and 4. It is true that PW.4 was a child of about 10 years. But the court had found him to be in a position to depose. But the High Court has found that the presence of PW.3 at the spot is highly improbable in view of certain aspects highlighted. One of them was his claim to have accompanied the deceased to the house of one Barati Lal for delivering milk in a Milk Can. In his cross-examination he admitted that he does not know where the house of the Barati Lal is. According to him, he and the deceased were returning after delivering the milk in a Can and the Can was tied to the cycle on which both of them were travelling. The Investigating Officer admitted that there was no Can lying at the place of occurrence and in fact no seizure of any Milk Can has been made. Apart from that the medical evidence clearly rules out the manner of infliction of injuries as deposed. Though ocular testimony of witnesses had greater evidentiary value vis-`-vis medical evidence, but when medical evidence totally improbablises the ocular testimony, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of evidence. In the instant case the medical evidence totally improbablises the version regarding the manner of assault by both the accused persons as noted above.