In Gross Contradiction Of Medical And Oral Evidence, Ocular Evidence May Be Disbelieved: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court observed that wherever there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.
The Court held thus while observing that minor discrepancies in the evidence of a prosecution witness are not given undue emphasize but where the ocular evidence seriously challenges the medical evidence, the prosecution case must be held inconsistent.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the decision of the trial Court that convicted and sentenced the petitioner of imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Shree Chandrasekhar and Justice Navneet Kumar observed, “It is well-settled in law that the minor discrepancies in the evidence of a prosecution witness are not given undue emphasize but where the ocular evidence seriously challenges the medical evidence, the prosecution case must be held inconsistent. Therefore, wherever there is a gross contradiction between medical evidence and oral evidence, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.”
Brief Facts-
A case was registered based on the statement of informant Parsuram Mahto, who alleged that Nirakar Mahto along with others assaulted Madho Singh Munda. According to Parsuram, who was informed by his wife, the accused dragged Munda out of his house and attacked him. This was allegedly due to the accused's animosity over the employment of Munda at the informant’s place and their interest in Parsuram's property.
The Court noted that there is no bar in law in examining an inimical, interested or related witness by a party to support his case. According to the Court, a witness may be closely related to the victim or inimical to the accused but on that ground, his testimony cannot be treated as tainted.
The Court mentioned the decision in Masalti v. State of U.P AIR 1965 SC 202 where according to the Court the Supreme Court cautioned that mechanical rejection of evidence of interested witnesses on the sole ground that it is partisan would invariably lead to failure of justice.
The Court further mentioned the decision in Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643 where according to the Court the Supreme Court held that the relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness, for it more often that the relatives would not conceal the actual culprit and make an allegation against an innocent person.
However, according to the Court, there is another rule of caution wherever it is shown to the Court that the parties are at loggerheads, the criminal Court should scrutinize the testimony of an interested/inimical witness with due care and caution.
The Court said that it is fundamental in law that the involvement of the accused and the role played by him must be conclusively established during the trial. However, according to the Court, it is not possible to hold that Nirakar Mahto is the person who caused the death of Madho Singh Munda.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the petitioner.
Cause Title: Nirakar Mahato v. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
Appearance:
Appellant: AC to Amicus Sonam
Respondent: Spcl. PP Vishwanath Ray
