Bikarma Manjhi And Ors vs State Of Bihar on 30 January, 2024
"7. The trial court was of the view that PW 5 was a
"transplanted" witness and he was introduced after
consultation and confabulations. No relevant or just
reason was indicated by the trial court to so conclude.
Though effort was made to show that he was interested
in the conviction of the accused, the High Court
analysed his evidence with great care and caution,
taking note of the fact that he was the son of deceased
Gurcharan Singh. After detailed analysis his evidence
was found credible and the reasons which weighed
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.484 of 2003 dt.30-01-2024
18/29
with the High Court in this regard are not shown to
suffer any infirmity to warrant our interference. The
other factor which weighed with the trial court is the
alleged variation between the medical and the ocular
evidence. Here again, the trial court's judgment was
practically not based on any acceptable reason. From a
perusal of the statement of Devinderpal Singh (PW 5)
and the medical evidence, referred to above, in our
opinion, it cannot be said that there was any
contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence.
There was absolutely no occasion for the trial court to
have observed that the evidence of PW 5 Devinderpal
Singh was not exactly in tune with the medical
evidence. Gurcharan Singh, the deceased had a stab-
wound on the back of the chest on "left side, 22 cm
below the neck and 1 cm from the midline", whereas
Devinderpal Singh (PW 5) had stated that blow was
given to his father on the back towards the right side.
In our opinion, it could not be said that there was any
contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence
when sufficient materials were produced to prove the
presence of the accused as well as PW 5 at the factory
at the time of occurrence, the fact that some or more of
records which could have been produced but not
shown to be deliberately withheld cannot by itself cast
any shadow of doubt on the veracity of the prosecution
version.