Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.24 seconds)The State Of Tamil Nadu vs The Madurantakam Co-Operative Sugar ... on 17 February, 1976
15. The learned counsel for the accused respondent urged that as per Ram Surat PW 1 the shot had been fired from a distance of six paces whereas, according to injured Babu Lal Yadav PW 2 , it was from a distance of 1-IVa palm (Bitta). We cannot agree that there is any contradiction, what to say material contradiction, in the ocular testimony of the two eyewitnesses on the one hand and the medical evidence on the other as to the distance of shooting. There being blackening in the wound, it was a close range fire as per the medical evidence and the testimony of the two eyewitnesses is substantially the same. Ram Surat PW 1 and Babu Lal Yadav PW 2 could not use the same set of words to describe the distance of shooting. Naturally, variance with regard to such distance is necessarily to be there in the testimony of truthful witnesses. Moreover, the Supreme Court has held in the case of State v. Sugarh Singh, AIR 1978 SC 191 that in case of gunshot injury, inconsistency relating to distance from which the shot was fired between the medical evidence and eyewitnesses is not of significance when the prosecution evidence pertaining to assault by shooting substantially tallies with the medical evidence. The same is the case here. The injured Babu Lal had been shot at from close range by the accused respondent Jagdish while he (victim) was sitting on the driver's seat in the vehicle. The blood had also fallen on some part of the seat and the Investigating Officer had cut a piece of blood stained seat and taken the same in his possession through Phard Ex.Ka-4. Therefore, the place of incident was specifically fixed through such evidence too. No doubt, Ram Surat PW 1 was the uncle of the victim but mere relationship or interestedness was not sufficient to discard his testimony when his presence was fully established. If a witness is related to the victim, he would naturally be interested in ensuring that the real culprit is punished and not screened. The evidence of close relative of the victim of a crime cannot be doubted on the ground of being partisan when his presence at the spot is beyond question, as we have found in the present case. The testimony of the injured was corroborated in material particulars by Ram Surat PW 1 and the ocular evidence was in complete harmony with medical evidence.
1