1. Appeal against conviction for rioting and murder under Sections 148, 325/149, and 302/149 IPC following a High Court reversal of a trial court's acquittal. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 580
1996(2) SUPREME 671
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.K. Mukherjee and G.B. Patanaik, JJ.
Niranjan Prasad & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 837 of 1985
Decided on 14-3-1996
Important Points
The court held that where objective medical evidence completely contradicts the ocular version of witnesses, the trial court's finding that such evidence is unreliable is not perverse, justifying the acquittal of the accused.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 148, 325/149, 302/149-26 accused prosecuted for offences acquitted by trial Court-High Court granted leave against 10 appellants and set aside their acquittal-Ocular evidence was that deceased and injured were assaulted with sharp cutting weapons-Post-mortem examination showing that deceased had not injury caused by sharp cutting weapon-Similar was medical evidence as regarding other injured-High Court was not justified to interfere with finding of trial Court. (Para 6)
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether medical evidence contradicting the ocular version regarding the nature of weapons used justifies the acquittal of the accused. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Medical evidence showing blunt force injuries contradicted ocular testimony claiming sharp weapon assaults, making the eye-witness accounts unreliable and the trial court's acquittal reasonable. (Para 6 )
4. A trial court's finding that medical evidence belies ocular testimony is not perverse and justifies acquittal unless the finding is against the weight of evidence. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed, High Court judgment set aside, and appellants acquitted of all charges. (Para 7 )
6. What is the legal effect of medical evidence contradicting ocular testimony in a criminal trial?
When objective medical findings, such as post-mortem reports, completely contradict the ocular version regarding the nature of injuries and weapons used, the trial court's decision to find the ocular version unreliable is not perverse. (Para 6 )
7. When is a High Court justified in setting aside a trial court's order of acquittal?
A High Court may set aside an acquittal if the trial court's findings are perverse or against the weight of evidence. However, if the trial court's reasoning is based on a reasonable contradiction between medical and ocular evidence, the acquittal should be upheld. (Para 6 )
8. How does the nature of the weapon used impact the credibility of eye-witness testimony?
If witnesses claim the use of sharp cutting weapons but medical evidence proves the injuries were caused by blunt weapons, the ocular version is rendered unreliable. (Para 6 )
JUDGMENT
M.K. Mukherjee, J.-26 persons including the 10 appellants were arraigned before the Sessions Judge, Jabbalpore for rioting, two murders and other allied offences. The trial ended in an acquittal or all of them; and aggrieved thereby the respondent-State of Madhya Pradesh filed an application seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. The High Court however granted leave only against the 10 appellants (the respondents therein). After hearing the parties the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal of the 10 appellants and convicted and sentenced each of them for offences punishable under Sections 148, 325/149, 302/149 (one count) IPC. Aggrieved thereby the appellants have filed the present appeal under Section 379 Cr.P.C.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is on July 2, 1981 at or about 10. A.M. when Gajadhar (PW 3) alongwith his sons Bhagwat and Lakhanlal and wife Kusumbai were cultivating their land, which is at a short distance from their village, the accused persons came there variously armed. While the appellants Niranjan prasad and Narayan Prasad (since dead) had rifles with them the other appellants were carrying weapons like lathis, spears and pharsa. Seeing the accused persons coming in a riotous mood Gajadhar and his family members tried to flee towards their village but could not succeed as on the way the miscreants caught them up on the road near the house of Khoobchand (PW4) and some of them started beating Gajadhar with the weapons in their hands. When his son Lakhanlal came to his rescue the appellant Sitaram assaulted him on his head with a ballam (spear) while some of the other appellants assaulted him with iron rods. Khoobchand then came to their rescue only to be assaulted by some of them. It is the further prosecution case that when they found Santkumar, another son of Gajadhar coming towards the road the appellants Narayan Singh and Niranjan Singh fired at him. Then the miscreants fled away. An information about the incident was given by one Rametibai at the Sihora police station immediately thereafter which was entered in the station diary. After making that entry ASI Dayaram Dube (PW27) went to the place of occurrence and first recorded the statement of Khoobchand which was treated as FIR. He then sent the four injured to the Hospital where Santkumar and Lakhanlal succumbed to the injuries in that very night. On completion of investigation PW 27 submitted chargesheet.
3. To prove its case the prosecution relied principally upon the ocular version of the incident as given out by Gajadhar (PW3). Khoobchand (PW4), Raj Kumari Bai (PW5), wife of the deceased Santkumar, and Kusumbai (PW6), wife of Gajadhar and a dying declaration made by Santkumar.
4. On perusal of the judgment of the trial Court we find that the principal grounds which weighed with it for recording the order of acquittal were that the medical evidence that was adduced by the prosecution to prove the injuries on the person of the deceased Lakhanlal PWs. 3 and 4 completely belied the ocular version of the witnesses and that their version regarding the murder of Santkumar was not at all reliable. Besides, the trial Court found that the evidence regarding the dying declaration allegedly made by Santkumar was unsatisfactory.
5. In appeal the High Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court regarding the murder of Santkumar as also the dying declaration. The High Court, however, found that the findings of the trial Court that the medical evidence did not fit in with the evidence of the eye-witnesses was not a proper one. According to the High Court the evidence of the eye-witnesses clearly established that the 10 appellants herein committed rioting armed with deadly weapons and in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly they committed the murder of Lakhanlal and also caused grievous hurt to PWs. 3 and 4.
6. To ascertain whether the above finding of the High Court as against the above 10 appella
