Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. Accordingly the trial court convicted the appellant for the offences for which he had been charged except under Section 504 I.P.C. and awarded the sentence as noted herein above.

11. Sri Bimal Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant has advanced his submissions contending that firstly, the presence of P.W.-2 is clearly doubtful as she in her testimony has stated that she was a teacher in a school the timing of which was from 7:00 AM to 12 Noon in the month of August and therefore she was not present at the time of incident, i.e., at 8:00 AM. Therefore, her testimony is absolutely unreliable. Thus, the ocular testimony of P.W.-2 being untrustworthy, any other evidence corroborating the same should also be discarded.

15. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, the learned A.G.A and Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey alongwith Sri Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel for the complainant have urged that the ocular testimony appears unimpeached and therefore, even if the postmortem does not indicate an assault injury by a stick. There is sufficient evidence to corroborate the same other than the postmortem report to establish that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with a stick causing an injury below his knee. It has been urged that this injury had been noticed by the inquest witnesses and the inquest report, which was prepared immediately after the lodging of the first information report stands corroborated by the ocular testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.-2 that the deceased had been assaulted by stick. They therefore contend that so far as the presence of the prosecution witnesses P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 is concerned, they have testified and their ocular testimony clearly establishes the assault by the appellant causing an injury to the deceased. It is urged that the statements of these witnesses are a clear pointer that it was the appellant, who had first assaulted the deceased on account of which he fell down and thereafter the other accused Buddhesh Misra shot at him through the neck.

21. The description of the incident by these two witnesses is to the effect that an oral altercation emanated when Buddhesh Misra, the other co-accused started abusing P.W.2 while she was filling a bucket with water from the hand pump inside the courtyard where the incident took place. The deceased was also sitting on a cot in the same courtyard as has been described in the site plan. It is this abusive language that was resisted by P.W.2 which escalated the incident, whereafter the appellant and the other accused Buddhesh Misra stepped out of their premises. The appellant with a stick in his hand had exhorted the other co-accused Buddhesh armed with a country made pistol to assault the deceased who had by that time got up to intervene. It has also come in evidence that there were other persons who had intervened in order to avoid incident. We are mentioning this fact as it has come in the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the same has also been made a point of argument by the learned counsel for the appellant that such witnesses have not been produced by the prosecution to establish the commission of the offence. This intervention was followed by a chase of the deceased by the assailants. The fact of chasing the deceased is clearly narrated by  both P.W.1 and P.W.2. Not only this, P.W.2 was thoroughly cross-examined not once but thrice on this issue, as is evident from her cross-examination and which also finds corroborated from the cross-examination of P.W.1. In the aforesaid circumstances, the defence did attempt to dislodge the said testimony but utterly failed to do so. The trial court therefore was absolutely convinced and rightly believed the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 giving the systematic description of the role of the assailants and the entire incident that has been described in detail, which version we also accept as nothing could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant to disbelieve the said eye witness account. It is, therefore clear that after the appellant had exhorted the other accused Buddhesh Misra and had assaulted the deceased with a stick that Budhesh Misra fired at the deceased culminating into his death. Consequently, the participation of the appellant in the incident categorically and clearly stands established by the aforesaid ocular testimony.

22. It is here that the argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant that the medical evidence does not support the same, has to be considered. It is correct that the postmortem report no where indicates the assault or external injury caused by a stick on the body of the deceased as described in the inquest report. However, the ocular testimony and the inquest report corroborate each other.

23. In this background, we may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Gangabhavani (Supra) where it has been held that whenever there is a conflicting doubt about any such injury described in the medical evidence and the ocular testimony, then in that event the ocular testimony should prevail. Paragraph 7 of the aforesaid decision of Gangabhavani (supra) reads as under:-