Ocular and medical evidence must be read harmoniously; minor discrepancies and explainable FIR timing issues do not defeat conviction.

A Supreme Court analysis of an acquittal found that minor discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence did not undermine the prosecution case where eyewitnesses gave a consistent account and the post-mortem findings remained compatible with their version. Allegations of ante-timing in the first information report were treated as explainable and insufficient, by themselves, to infer fabrication or a different date of occurrence. The rejection of an independent eyewitness was criticised as conjectural because his testimony had no intrinsic infirmity and was corroborated by surrounding circumstances. The note also states that appellate interference with acquittal is justified where the trial or appellate court misreads evidence and reaches a perverse conclusion.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction and acquitting the accused on the grounds of alleged inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence, alleged ante-timing of the first information report, and rejection of the testimony of an independent eye-witness.

Analysis: The prosecution eye-witnesses gave a consistent account of the assault, and their version was not contradicted by the post-mortem evidence. The alleged discrepancy regarding the use of the spear portion as a blunt weapon was not material, since the witnesses had explained that the accused struck the deceased with the lathi portion of the spears, which fitted the medical findings. The alleged ante-timing of the first information report was found to be a minor and explainable circumstance and did not justify an inference that the occurrence had happened on a different date or that the prosecution case had been fabricated. The independent witness was rejected by the High Court on conjectural grounds, although his evidence did not suffer from intrinsic infirmity and was sufficiently corroborated by the surrounding circumstances. In an appeal against acquittal, interference was warranted where the acquittal rested on misreading of evidence and a perverse appreciation of the record.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the prosecution case was held proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused were convicted under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

---