Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

A curved weapon, such as a scythe or sickle, first produces a stab or puncture and then an incised wound ; sometimes the intervening skin may be left intact."

32. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2016) 4 SCC 357 after relying upon the case of Darbara Singh vs. State of Punjab 2012 (10) SCC 476 held that "...... so far as the question of inconsistency between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-a-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved."

33. P.W.5/Dr. A. A. Khan has also stated that according to Modi's Jurisprudence, a curved weapon such as sickle, first produces a stab or puncture and then an incised wound ; sometimes the intervening skin may be left intact.

34. Dr. Khan further specifically stated that injury no.10 could have been caused by sickle. As Injury no.10 is a puncture wound with sharp edges and sharp angles, which was directed downwards and towards right side and his opinion is fully supported by Modi's Jurisprudence. Sickle is a semi circular weapon with one side of it with sharp edges and other portion is pointed which could cause the puncture wound along with other sharp edges and angles. Evidence of Dr. Khan is fully reliable and is in consonance with the ocular testimony of the witnesses wherein prosecution has come up with the case that injuries were caused by sickle, Gadasa and Banka. Injuries of the body of the deceased are incised wound coupled with the injury no.10 which is puncture wound. We are of the considered view that medico legal evidence of Dr. Khan is fully reliable.

46. A similar view has been taken in Mani Ram & Ors. v. State of U.P., 1994 Supp (2) SCC 289; Khambam Raja Reddy & Anr. v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2006) 11 SCC 239; and State of U.P. v. Dinesh, (2009) 11 SCC 566.

47. In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand, (2009) 13 SCC 542, Hon'ble the Apex Court reiterated the aforementioned position of law and stated that, "In any event unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy."

48. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-Ã-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.

Motive in criminal cases based solely on the positive, clear, cogent and reliable ocular testimony of witnesses is not at all relevant. In such a fact-situation, the mere absence of a strong motive to commit the crime, cannot be of any assistance to the accused. ........................." "

57. Now in the backdrop of above said legal proposition of law, we have to scrutinize the evidence of the witnesses.

58. P.W.1/Shiv Ram is father of the deceased and before dealing with the evidence of P.W.1/Shiv Ram, it will be useful to first examine the evidence of P.W.2/Rajjan, who is son of the deceased as well as was present in the field.