Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

• It is stated that the doctor who conducted postmortem has not stated about gunshot injury, therefore, such ocular testimony when compared with the evidence of medical expert, the same becomes doubtful;

• referring to the report (Ex.P/1) of Armourer, learned senior counsel would submit that the gun, which was alleged to have used in the crime, was not in working condition as the trigger was damaged and, as such, the statement of Pinki Nagwani (PW-17) on which the conviction is based is erroneous;

37. In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542 this Court reiterated the aforementioned position of law : (SCC p.545, Para 1 "13. ... In any even unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy."
38. Thus, the position of law in such a case of contradiction between medical and ocular evidence can be crystalised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-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 CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. (Vide Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P (2010) 10 SCC 259)
32. The Supreme Court in State of Uttarakhand Vs. Darshan Singh (Supra) has reiterated the evidentiary value of ocular testimony versus medical evidence. At para 43, the Court held as follows:
"43. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259, this Court discussed elaborately the case law on the subject of conflict between medical evidence and ocular evidence: (SCC pp. 272-74, paras 32-39) "Medical evidence versus ocular evidence

39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical CRA No.458 of 2020 & other connected matters evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-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."