Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The trial Court, at the outset, determined that there were cogent allegations only against 32 persons out of the 82 accused and proceeded to examine the evidence against those 32 persons only.   On   evaluation   of   the   material   on   record,   the   trial   Court acquitted all the accused by giving them the benefit of doubt. It was observed by the trial Court that the prosecution sought to establish the death of five persons through the use of sharp and pointed  weapons,   but such factum was not alleged in the first information report and only the factum of assault leading to the death of two persons was reported; the names of the assailants had   not   been   disclosed   in   the   first   information   report;   several witnesses were found to have admitted to have made disclosures of  allegations   for  the   first time before the Court at the time of recording   their   depositions;   the   evidence   of   the   investigating officer disclosed a number of contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses; there was non­recovery of burnt articles, etc.   It was also observed by the trial Court that the medical evidence was contrary to the ocular testimony of the witnesses, inasmuch as the post mortem reports of the deceased and medical reports of the injured showed the absence of incised or punctured wounds, wherein the prosecution witnesses had stated that the deceased and   injured   had   been   assaulted   with   sharp   weapons   such   as tangi, ballam, kencha, etc.  The injuries found on the deceased as well   as   on   the   injured   persons   were   in   the   nature   of   bruises, abrasions   and   lacerations,   which,   according   to   the   trial   Court, might have been suffered due to a stampede.   On these, among other grounds, the trial Court acquitted the accused.

21. With   regard   to   the   conflict   between   the   ocular   testimony and   the   medical   evidence,  in  our  considered opinion,   the  High Court   has   ignored   the   fact   that   lathis   were   also   used   while assaulting   along   with   sharp   edge   weapons.     Moreover,   it   is   by now  well  settled   that   the  medical  evidence cannot  override the evidence   of   ocular   testimony   of   the   witnesses.     If   there   is   a conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, naturally the ocular testimony prevails.   In other words, where the   eye   witnesses   account   is   found   to   be   trustworthy   and credible,   medical   opinion   pointing   to   alternative   possibilities   is not accepted as conclusive [See  State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal, (1988) 4 SCC 302]. We do not wish to comment further on the merits   of   the   matter   at   this   stage   since   the   matter   needs remittance to the High Court.