Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed appeals filed by the victim and the State against the High Court's judgment acquitting the accused in a murder case. The case arose from an incident on 25.05.2005 where the deceased, Satinder Pal Singh, was attacked outside a hospital. The prosecution's case, based on eyewitnesses Prem Singh (PW1) and Major Singh (PW2), alleged that accused Sardul Singh first inflicted knife blows, and then other accused fired rifles at the deceased. However, the medical evidence from Dr. Deepak Walia (PW13) revealed that the knife injuries were postmortem, contradicting the eyewitness account that the knife blows were inflicted first. The Supreme Court found this discrepancy fatal to the prosecution case. Additionally, the Court noted several other weaknesses: the eyewitnesses did not attempt to take the deceased inside the hospital for treatment, instead going to a milk chilling centre to lodge the FIR; the seized firearms were not sent to a ballistic expert; and the Tata Sumo vehicle was not linked to the accused. The Court held that the High Court's acquittal was justified and dismissed the appeals.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Contradiction between Ocular and Medical Evidence - Sections 148, 302/149 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act - The prosecution's eyewitnesses claimed that the accused inflicted knife blows before firing, but the doctor opined that the knife injuries were postmortem. The Supreme Court held that such a major discrepancy falsifies the eyewitness version, and the High Court rightly acquitted the accused. (Paras 5-7) B) Criminal Law - Appreciation of Evidence - Conduct of Witnesses - The eyewitnesses did not attempt to take the deceased to the hospital for treatment despite the incident occurring in the hospital compound, and instead went to a milk chilling centre to lodge the FIR. The Court held that this unnatural conduct casts doubt on their credibility. (Para 9) C) Criminal Law - Forensic Evidence - Failure to Send Weapons to Ballistic Expert - The licensed firearms of the accused were seized but not sent to a ballistic expert, and no forensic evidence linked them to the crime. The Court held that this is a significant lacuna in the prosecution case. (Para 10) D) Criminal Law - Recovery of Vehicle - Lack of Link to Accused - The Tata Sumo vehicle recovered at the scene was not proved to belong to the accused, and no connection was established. The Court held that this further weakens the prosecution case. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused on the ground that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular evidence and other discrepancies existed in the prosecution case.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed both appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment of acquittal. The Court found no merit in the appeals and held that the medical evidence contradicted the ocular evidence, and other discrepancies (conduct of witnesses, failure to send weapons for ballistic examination, lack of link of vehicle to accused) further discredited the prosecution case.
Law Points
- Ocular evidence must be consistent with medical evidence
- Medical evidence can discredit eyewitness testimony
- Postmortem injuries cannot be attributed to accused
- Failure to send seized weapons to ballistic expert weakens prosecution case
- Unreasonable conduct of witnesses casts doubt on credibility
