Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. After considering the ocular testimony, the learned trial court also examined the arguments made by the accused that ocular testimony contradicts medical evidence. It was argued that PW-4 Dr. P.N. Bajpai had stated that the size of the firearm injuries varied, and they had occurred from three different directions. Consequently, it was impossible that the deceased had suffered a single gun shot, as consistently stated by the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial court thoroughly addressed this issue. It observed that out of ten firearm injuries, only three had exit wounds, while the remaining four had no exit wounds. The Court further held that the varied size of the injuries was not significant because variation is negligent. Based on these findings, the learned trial Court concluded that all seven entrance wounds and three exit wounds could have been caused by a single gun shot injury. Summing up its conclusion based on ocular testimony and medical evidence, the learned trial Court found the appellants guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the IPC. As for the charge under Section 307 of the IPC, the learned trial court held that the prosecution's claim that the shot hit the wall did not find corroboration because cartridge or pellets were not recovered from the spot. The Court also noted that the prosecution's story was that the shot was fired by Kishan from his pistol while he was running at school. Therefore, the court concluded that there was a possibility that the shot was fired to scare away the people.

18. Learned AGA has submitted that prosecution case is that appellant Badri Prasad was holding a double barrel gun and he fired it upon the deceased. It is established fact that bullets in a double-barrel gun consist of multiple pellets, which spread out when fired. The extent of this spread depends on the distance between the shooter and the target. All injuries recorded in postmortem indicate that they are confined to the chest, shoulder, and right arm. This suggests that a single shot was fired from close range, which spread and hit the thorax region of the deceased. The prosecution version is consistent as to this aspect that the deceased was hit by single shot and same finds corroboration from postmortem report. It is settled law that unless medical evidence is entirely inconsistent with ocular testimony, ocular testimony will always prevail. The learned AGA concluded his arguments by stating that there is nothing on record to contradict the unblemished testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and the arguments of the appellants regarding medical evidence lacks merit.

20. We have also considered the arguments advanced by learned AGA that ocular testimony in this particular case cannot be discarded because it is not in variance with medical evidence. Before drawing any conclusions, it would be relevant to discuss the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases where arguments regarding corroboration or variance in ocular testimony and medical evidence are raised. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484 has held that some inconsistencies between the testimony of eye witnesses and medical evidence cannot be taken as a ground to discard the testimony of eye witnesses. Said proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the general principle which has to be followed by Courts in cases where certain inconsistencies arise between ocular testimony and medical evidence.

25. In this case it is difficult to reconcile the ocular testimony with medical evidence, and the only option available before the Court is to discard the ocular testimony as not reliable. Before discarding ocular testimony of eye witness, it will be expedient to consider other arguments raised by learned AGA in support of prosecution story. It is true that testimony of eye witnesses is consistent which gives impression that witnesses were present on the spot at the time of occurrence. Another relevant fact is that FIR in this case was lodged promptly i.e., 4 hours after the occurrence. If we consider the testimony of eye witnesses, it is evident that it is clearly at variance with medical evidence. One more factor which is relevant in this case is the long-standing enmity between the parties. PW-1 Mahadeo in examination-in-chief has given description regarding murders which had occurred earlier where each party was involved in murdering each others' family members. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Aslam @ Imran vs. State of Madhy Pradesh, 2025 Live Law (SC) 365 has held that enmity is a double edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication.