Court Should Be Circumspect In Admitting Evidence Of Interested & Partisan Eyewitness While Ignoring Convincing Opinion Of Medical Expert: SC
The Supreme Court has observed that where there is a prominent contradiction completely demolishing the version of the eyewitnesses who are interested and partisan, in such cases, the Court should be circumspect in admitting the evidence of the eyewitness while ignoring the convincing opinion of the Medical Expert.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “Thus, there is formidable evidence of the Medical Jurist(PW-9) which totally discredits the version of the so-called eyewitnesses(PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3) that Jeeva(deceased) was inflicted the injuries leading to his death while being in police custody at the Amraiwadi Police Station. Their evidence is contradicted in material particulars by the medical evidence and other attending circumstances…We are conscious of the proposition that where there are contradictions inter se between the opinion of the Medical Jurist and the ocular testimony, generally, the evidence of the eyewitnesses should be given precedence. However, where the contradiction is so prominent that it completely demolishes the version of the eyewitnesses who are interested and partisan, in such cases, the Court should be circumspect in admitting the evidence of the eyewitness while ignoring the convincing opinion of the Medical Expert.”
Senior Advocate Harin P. Raval appeared for the Appellants whereas AOR Swati Ghildiyal and Advocate Deepanwita Priyanka appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
An appeal was filed against a judgment passed by the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court partly accepting the appeal preferred by the Appellant herein and altered his conviction as recorded by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) to one under Section 304 Part I IPC and sentenced him to undergo eight years rigorous imprisonment.
The appellant, who was a Police Inspector, assaulted the deceased who came to surrender at the Police Station where the Appellant was posted. The condition of the deceased deteriorated in the prison and thus, he was rushed to the civil hospital in the early hours of June 12, 1992, where the doctors declared him dead.
The Court said the two so-called eyewitnesses had sufficient contact with the legal system, were well aware of the legal machinery and would be knowing the importance of filing a complaint promptly. Nothing prevented the ladies from immediately approaching the higher officials or the concerned Court to make a complaint of the alleged assault made on their victim brother/deceased in the Amraiwadi Police Station by the police officials. “We are convinced that they are not witnesses of sterling worth and their evidence is not fit to be relied upon.”, the Court observed.
While examining the testimony of the Doctor, the Court said, “Dr. Ravindra(PW-10) was examined by the prosecution as an expert witness to give opinion on certain queries raised by the Investigating Officer. Dr. Ravindra(PW-10) responded to these queries vide a letter which was marked as Exhibit-53 during his sworn testimony. However, what precisely were the contents of the letter were not deposed by the expert in his evidence. Thus, mere marking of exhibit upon the letter without the expert deposing about the opinion given therein would not dispense with the proof of contents of the document as per the mandate of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
The Court said that considering the unimpeachable and strong opinion of the Medical Jurist, the probability of the victim having been assaulted in Sabarmati Central jail leading to the fatal injuries noted in the postmortem report is much higher as compared to the theory set up in the complaint and the evidence of the star prosecution witness that deceased was fatally assaulted the Appellant while he was detained at the Police Station.
On the theory of motive, the Court said that merely because the deceased had prior criminal antecedents, that by itself, could not have provided a motive to the Appellant police officials to have singled him out for custodial torture while sparing the co-accused.
Accordingly, the Court acquitted the Appellant and quashed the judgment passed by the High Court.
Cause Title: Vinod Jaswantray Vyas (Dead) Through LRs v. The State of Gujarat (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 490)
Appearances:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Harin P. Raval, AOR Anando Mukherjee, Advocates Shwetank Singh, Ekta Bharati, Shreya Bansal, Shrestha Narayan, Urmi H. Raval
Respondent: AOR Swati Ghildiyal and Advocates Deepanwita Priyanka, and Devyani Bhatt.
