Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it: The Supreme Court of India
It is only in a case where there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. The Aforesaid has been established by the SC in the case of Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol Vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala [ CrA 177 OF 2014] which was decided upon by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy on 26 July 2021. The facts of the case are as follows. In this case, the High Court had reversed the Trial Court order convicting the accused on the ground that the evidence of the eye­witnesses is inconsistent with the medical evidence, regarding the nature of injuries vis­à­vis the weapons of offence. The deceased was assaulted on 01.10.2003 at 2:30 am while he was returning on a motorcycle along with the witness who was the pillion rider. The respondents are said to have assaulted with iron pipe, steel rod and stick, causing three stab wounds and nine incised wounds. It was submitted by the counsel for appellants that there was no inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence. The High Court erred in the appreciation of evidence by failing to take not that the iron rod had a sharp edge by which the injuries on the deceased were possible. It is only if the medical evidence was totally inconsistent with the ocular evidence, the former was to be given precedence. Reliance was placed on Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat, 1983 (2) SCC 174 and State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal and Another, 1988 (4) SCC 302 and Baleshwar Mahto vs. State of Bihar, 2017 (3) SCC 152. On the contrary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first three respondents, the fourth one absconding till date, relying on Ramesh Babulal Doshi vs. State of Gujarat,1996 (9) SCC 225, Dhanna vs. State of M.P. with Kanhiyalal and another vs. State of M.P., 1996(10) SCC 79, and Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2008(10) SCC 450, submitted that in an appeal against acquittal if two views are possible, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. The Court perused the facts and arguments presented. The bench, referring to evidence on record, addressed the contention that identification was not possible in the night to give them the benefit of doubt. It was of the opinion that “The aforesaid discussion leads us to the conclusion that the acquittal by the High Court is based on misappreciation of the evidence and the overlooking of relevant evidence thereby arriving at a wrong conclusion. It is not a case where two views are possible or the credibility of the witnesses is in doubt. Neither is it a case of a solitary uncorroborated witness. The conclusion of the High Court is therefore held to be perverse and irrational. The acquittal is therefore held to be unsustainable and is set aside. In the nature of the assault, Section 304 Part II, IPC has no application. The conviction of respondent nos. 1 to 4 by the Trial Court is restored.”
conviction of respondents 1 to 4 under Sections 302 34 120B of the Indian Penal Code sentencing them to life imprisonment and fifteen days imprisonment under Section The deceased was assaulted on 01.10.2003 at 2:30 am was the pillion rider. The respondents are said to have assaulted with iron pipe steel rod and stick causing three stab PW­10 is inconsistent with the medical evidence regarding the behalf of the appellant submitted that the First Information naming the four respondents. The deceased PW­2 and the PW­12 had deposed that the respondents had threatened the an independent witness PW­10 the security guard of the bungalow near which the occurrence took place. There were Dr. Vishwamitra whose signatures he identified had noted that The postmortem report as deposed by the Doctor PW­1 to 4 which were on the head were sufficient to cause death possible. It is only if the medical evidence was totally inconsistent with the ocular evidence the former was to be given precedence. Reliance was placed on Solanki and State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal and Another 1988SCC 225 Dhanna vs. State of M.P. with Kanhiyalal and another vs. State of M.P. 1996(10) SCC 79 and Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2008(10) SCC are possible the benefit of doubt should be given to the not possible by a steel rod or iron pipe. The genesis of the Court therefore calls for no interference. The recovery of the witnesses PW­4 and PW­5 have both turned hostile. There is dark night with no moonlight even. Identification of the injuries on the person of the deceased. PW­1 acknowledged In view of the variation between the ocular and medical chance meeting of the respondents with the deceased. In respondents assaulted in what manner and also considering and half years of custody in the entirety their conviction may be altered to one under Section 304 Part II IPC sentencing 9. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the that PW­2 who was accompanying the deceased on the the truth. PW­2 deposed that the respondents stopped them pipe. Thereafter all the respondents started assaulting the deceased with iron pipes sticks and iron rods. Thereafter the 11. The respondents were not strangers but well known to 12. There is evidence about the availability of light near the place of occurrence. Even otherwise that there may not have between known persons is acknowledged to be possible by voice silhouette shadow and gait also. Therefore we do not identification was not possible in the night to give them the 13. In Nathuni Yadav vs State of Bihar 9 SCC 238 “9…. Even assuming that there was no moonlight bility to correctly identify the assailants. Over and inmates of the tragedy­bound house the eyewit­ of each one of the killers. We are therefore not per­ assailants had enough light to identify the victims whom they targeted without any mistake from light then available though meagre was enough for tainly have pointedly focussed their eyes on the 14. PW­10 was an independent witness. Neither has his presence been doubted nor his impartiality been suspected beating the person who was driving the motorcycle while the 15. PW­1 the Doctor who conducted the post­mortem found vii) One stitched wound one centimeter below the injury No. 5 its size was 8 cm x .25 cm it was stitched ix) One cut wound 2 cm below the right lip going towards backside of ear its size was 2.5 cm it was going towards backside its size was 3.5 cm x .25 cm and lower 2 3 level its size was 2 cm x 1.5 cm deep upto muscles both the edges were T square and its size was 2.5 cm x 1 cm deep up to muscles both the edges were T­square and wound margin was going upwards its length was 10 cm and was deep xvi) One cut wound found in the middle of right forearm which was oblique and upward on the anterior aspect its size was 6.6 cm it was deep upto palmer aspect i.e. on palm its size was 3.5cm it was He deposed that the iron rod used for assault shown to him 16. The recovery of the weapons of assault from the place of the seizure memo. Cumulatively in view of the nature of 17. Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless the medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable 18. The aforesaid discussion leads us to the conclusion that the evidence and the overlooking of relevant evidence thereby are possible or the credibility of the witnesses is in doubt conclusion of the High Court is therefore held to be perverse and irrational. The acquittal is therefore held to be unsustainable and is set aside. In the nature of the assault Section 304 Part II IPC has no application. The conviction of 19. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 are directed to surrender within two weeks to serve out the remaining period of their take all necessary steps to apprehend the absconding fourth