The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that oral evidence gets primacy over medical evidence and medical evidence is “basically opinionative”..The Court held that minor contradictions between the accounts of eye-witnesses and that of the medical evidence would not shake a prosecution case. The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices R Banumathi and R Subhash Reddy in a batch of appeals filed against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had convicted the appellants under Sections 341 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..“The inconsistencies pointed out in the evidence of eyewitnesses inter se and the alleged inconsistencies between the evidence of eye-witnesses and that of the medical evidence are minor contradictions and they do not shake the prosecution case.”.The appellants in the case were charged for the murder of the victim, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. The victim was attacked with a lathi and was later fired at with a country-made pistol. The post-mortem report of the victim stated that the death was caused due to the gun-shot injury..Fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution while the seized pistol was also sent for forensic tests. The forensic test, however, stated that the barrel marks on the gun were not sufficient for decisive matching..The accused persons were convicted by the Trial Court following which they approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court turned down the appeal which led to the appeal in the Supreme Court..The counsel for the appellants submitted that the First Information Report (FIR) against the accused persons suffered from manipulations and that the medical evidence was contrary to the evidence adduced by the witnesses in the FIR..The contradictions, according to the appellants, was on two counts – the number of weapons used and the distance from which shots were fired. It was further submitted that the case was that of blind murder and the witnesses in the FIR were introduced subsequently..The appellants also relied upon the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory report which had concluded that there were no sufficient barrel marks in the cartridge of the pistol seized from one of the accused..The State, however, submitted that the conviction was based on the eye-witness accounts of two witnesses which found corroboration in the FSL report and the decision of the Court needed no interference..The Court noted that the discrepancies spoken of by the appellants pertain to minor points such as the number of blows given to the victim and the distance between the assailants and the victim are minor contradictions and “may be due to normal errors of observation narrating the occurrence, which they have witnesses.”.“The power of observation differs from person to person witnessing an attack. While the prime event of attack and the weapon are observed by a person, other minute details of number of blows, the distance from which the fire was shot might go unnoticed. So long as the evidence of eyewitnesses is found credible and trustworthy, their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground of minor contradictions.”.Regarding the inconsistencies between oral evidence and medical evidence, the Court held that it is well settled that the oral evidence has to get primacy since medical evidence is basically opinionative..In this regard, the Court placed reliance upon the judgments in Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha in which it was held that “alleged variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, it is trite law that oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opinionative. It is only when the medical evidence specifically rules out the injury as is claimed to have been inflicted as per the oral testimony, then only in a given case the court has to draw adverse inference.”.The same principle was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and another, wherein the Supreme Court had held “that eyewitnesses’ account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility.”.“The evidence of eye-witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice”, the Court said..In the instant case, the Court held that alleged inconsistencies between the evidence of eye-witnesses and that of the medical evidence are minor contradictions and they do not shake the prosecution case..“The consistent version of PWs 2, 3 and 13 cannot be decided on the touchstone of medical evidence”, the Court concluded..Read the Judgment:
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that oral evidence gets primacy over medical evidence and medical evidence is “basically opinionative”..The Court held that minor contradictions between the accounts of eye-witnesses and that of the medical evidence would not shake a prosecution case. The judgment was rendered by a Bench of Justices R Banumathi and R Subhash Reddy in a batch of appeals filed against a judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had convicted the appellants under Sections 341 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)..“The inconsistencies pointed out in the evidence of eyewitnesses inter se and the alleged inconsistencies between the evidence of eye-witnesses and that of the medical evidence are minor contradictions and they do not shake the prosecution case.”.The appellants in the case were charged for the murder of the victim, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community. The victim was attacked with a lathi and was later fired at with a country-made pistol. The post-mortem report of the victim stated that the death was caused due to the gun-shot injury..Fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution while the seized pistol was also sent for forensic tests. The forensic test, however, stated that the barrel marks on the gun were not sufficient for decisive matching..The accused persons were convicted by the Trial Court following which they approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The High Court turned down the appeal which led to the appeal in the Supreme Court..The counsel for the appellants submitted that the First Information Report (FIR) against the accused persons suffered from manipulations and that the medical evidence was contrary to the evidence adduced by the witnesses in the FIR..The contradictions, according to the appellants, was on two counts – the number of weapons used and the distance from which shots were fired. It was further submitted that the case was that of blind murder and the witnesses in the FIR were introduced subsequently..The appellants also relied upon the findings of the Forensic Science Laboratory report which had concluded that there were no sufficient barrel marks in the cartridge of the pistol seized from one of the accused..The State, however, submitted that the conviction was based on the eye-witness accounts of two witnesses which found corroboration in the FSL report and the decision of the Court needed no interference..The Court noted that the discrepancies spoken of by the appellants pertain to minor points such as the number of blows given to the victim and the distance between the assailants and the victim are minor contradictions and “may be due to normal errors of observation narrating the occurrence, which they have witnesses.”.“The power of observation differs from person to person witnessing an attack. While the prime event of attack and the weapon are observed by a person, other minute details of number of blows, the distance from which the fire was shot might go unnoticed. So long as the evidence of eyewitnesses is found credible and trustworthy, their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground of minor contradictions.”.Regarding the inconsistencies between oral evidence and medical evidence, the Court held that it is well settled that the oral evidence has to get primacy since medical evidence is basically opinionative..In this regard, the Court placed reliance upon the judgments in Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha in which it was held that “alleged variance between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, it is trite law that oral evidence has to get primacy and medical evidence is basically opinionative. It is only when the medical evidence specifically rules out the injury as is claimed to have been inflicted as per the oral testimony, then only in a given case the court has to draw adverse inference.”.The same principle was reiterated in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and another, wherein the Supreme Court had held “that eyewitnesses’ account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility.”.“The evidence of eye-witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice”, the Court said..In the instant case, the Court held that alleged inconsistencies between the evidence of eye-witnesses and that of the medical evidence are minor contradictions and they do not shake the prosecution case..“The consistent version of PWs 2, 3 and 13 cannot be decided on the touchstone of medical evidence”, the Court concluded..Read the Judgment:
