Direct eye-witness testimony cannot be discarded for minor inconsistencies when medical evidence supports the prosecution version

The Court held that a prosecution case based on direct eye-witness testimony should not be rejected on minor discrepancies or collateral inconsistencies when the core version remains consistent and is substantially supported by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances. The reasons relied on to discard the witnesses, including the timing of the occurrence, cow-dung on the deceased's hands, alleged inconsistency about despatch of the body, and the supposed improbability of the weapon used, were found insufficient to discredit the testimony. The acquittal was therefore set aside and the trial court's convictions for murder and causing hurt were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was right in discarding the prosecution eye-witness account and setting aside the convictions for murder and causing hurt.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested on direct ocular testimony of several witnesses, supported by medical evidence and the surrounding circumstances. The reasons given for rejecting the witnesses, including the timing of the occurrence, the presence of cow-dung on the deceased's hands, the alleged inconsistency as to despatch of the body, and the supposed improbability of the weapon used, were found not sufficiently sound to discredit the core version. Minor discrepancies and non-disclosure of collateral facts did not justify a wholesale rejection of otherwise reliable testimony, particularly where the substratum of the prosecution case remained consistent and the medical evidence substantially supported it.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable. The convictions recorded by the trial court for murder and for causing hurt to the child were restored, and the appeal was allowed.

---