Credible ocular evidence can uphold a conviction even if it contradicts medical evidence, provided it is consistent and trustworthy.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant Interlocutory Application is filed on behalf of Appellant, namely Surendra Malar for suspension of sentence in connection with judgment of conviction dated 9^th July, 2021 and order of sentence dated 16^th July, 2021, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Gumla in S.T. No. 50 of 2019, arising out of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 42 of 2018, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 873 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for 12 months and the period of custody undergone during the trial has been directed to be set off.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has submitted that this is a case where the conviction is based solely upon the testimony of P.W.5, who even cannot be said to be trustworthy. It has been submitted that the testimony which has been given with respect to the nature of injury by the P.W.5 is not being corroborated from the medical evidence and as such in view of the wide contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, it is a fit case for suspension of sentence and he has already undergone the sentence for a period of Six years three months 12 days. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, submitted that this is a fit case for suspension of sentence.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P., appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the prayer for suspension of sentence. It has been contended that looking to the testimony of P.W.5, it appears that the P.W.5, being Informant of the case, has fully supported the prosecution version. The P.W.5 also remained consistent during cross-examination. The learned counsel for the State, based upon the aforesaid grounds, submitted that this is not a fit case for suspension of sentence.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment and the ocular testimony available in the Trial Court Record and other material exhibits as available.

We have gone through the testimony of P.W. 5 in entirety and found that the P.W.5, i.e. the Informant, has fully supported the prosecution version. It is also evident from the cross-examination part of the P.W.5 that he remained consistent in the cross-examination of what he has stated in the F.I.R. and that in his examination-in- chief. We have also considered the testimony of P.W.2, who has also supported the prosecution version. The question, which has been raised is that the evidence, which has been given by the P.W.5, has not been corroborated by the medical evidence, so far as the nature injury is concerned.

Law in this regard is settled that if the conviction is based upon the testimony of eye witness, even though there is any contradiction, the ocular evidence will not be allowed to be given a go by over and above the medical evidence.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the prosecution version is willfully supported by the P.W.2 and P.W.5 and as such, this is not a fit case for suspension of sentence and as such, the prayer for suspension of sentence is rejected.

6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1929 of 2025 is rejected.