Supreme Court upholds conviction in firearm injury case, rejects alibi defense and evidence discrepancy claims

SC dismissed appeal in firearm injury case. Court rejected appellant's alibi plea and arguments regarding discrepancies between medical and ocular evidence. Five accused attacked deceased with knives and firearm, causing injuries to front and back. Eye witnesses' testimony found credible despite claims of defective investigation and absence of independent witnesses. Court held prosecution proved case beyond reasonable doubt, rejecting defense attempts to create doubt through technical objections. Trial court and HC judgments upheld as prosecution's case remained unshaken.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Plea of alibi by Law @ Upendra Tiwari.
2. Alleged discrepancies in the testimonies of eye witnesses.
3. Alleged ante-timing of the FIR.
4. Discrepancies between the inquest report and the post-mortem report.
5. Alleged discrepancies between medical evidence and ocular evidence.
6. Alleged defective investigation and absence of independent witnesses.
7. Reference to antecedents of the accused.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Plea of Alibi by Law @ Upendra Tiwari:
The appellant, Law Tiwari, claimed that he could not have participated in the crime due to a fractured leg. The trial court noted that neither the x-ray plate nor the advice of Dr. M.P. Singh was produced. No papers of admission or treatment at the Garhwa Hospital were presented. The prosecution countered that Law Tiwari was absconding and was only arrested later. The court emphasized that the burden of proving the plea of alibi lies heavily on the accused, which Law Tiwari failed to discharge. The court cited precedents like Vijay Pal v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Jitender Kumar v. State of Haryana to reinforce this point. Consequently, the plea of alibi was rejected.

2. Alleged Discrepancies in the Testimonies of Eye Witnesses:
The appellant contended that there were contradictions in the testimonies of the eye witnesses. However, the court found that the testimonies of Pankaj Kumar Singh (PW-6) and Subodh Kumar Singh (PW-13) were consistent and credible. The court dismissed the argument that PW-13 was a chance witness, noting that he explained his presence and could identify the accused. The court did not rely on the testimony of PW-18 due to a delay in examination.

3. Alleged Ante-timing of the FIR:
The appellant argued that the FIR was ante-timed, reaching the court a day later despite the proximity of the police station and the court. The court examined the sequence of events and timings, concluding that the FIR was registered promptly and reached the court the next morning. The court found no merit in the plea of ante-timing, citing Sudarshan and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra to emphasize the importance of timely FIR registration.

4. Discrepancies Between the Inquest Report and the Post-Mortem Report:
The appellant pointed out differences between the inquest report, which mentioned six injuries, and the post-mortem report, which listed 26 injuries, including gunshot wounds. The court clarified that the inquest report is not substantive evidence and its purpose is limited to ascertaining the cause of death. The court cited cases like Suresh Roy v. State of Bihar and Tehseen Poonawalla v. Union of India to support this view. The court concluded that the discrepancies did not undermine the prosecution's case.

5. Alleged Discrepancies Between Medical Evidence and Ocular Evidence:
The appellant argued that the medical evidence did not match the ocular evidence, particularly regarding the distance of the gunshot and the condition of the deceased's body. The court found no significant discrepancy, noting that the eye witnesses' testimonies were consistent with the medical findings. The court dismissed the argument about the deceased's food consumption, stating that it did not cast doubt on the prosecution's story.

6. Alleged Defective Investigation and Absence of Independent Witnesses:
The appellant claimed that the investigation was defective and lacked independent witnesses. The court found no reason to disbelieve the eye witnesses' credible testimonies. The court emphasized that the standard of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt does not mean finding excuses for acquittal.

7. Reference to Antecedents of the Accused:
The appellant argued that the High Court erroneously considered the antecedents of the accused, contrary to Section 53 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court noted that the reference to the accused being "dangerous" was not supported by evidence and did not influence the courts' judgments. The court found no merit in this argument.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecution's case was established beyond reasonable doubt and the appellants failed to cast any doubt on the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. Both appeals were dismissed, and the parties were left to bear their own costs.

---