Plea of alibi and minor medical discrepancies failed to disturb conviction where eye-witness and post-mortem evidence substantially matched.

The SC reiterated that a plea of alibi must be proved by the accused with certainty and must exclude the possibility of presence at the scene; incomplete defence material and non-examination of the treating doctor failed to dislodge the concurrent findings of guilt. It also held that the FIR was not shown to be ante-timed, and that a difference between the inquest and post-mortem reports was not fatal because the inquest is not substantive evidence and the medical evidence explained the injuries. The eye-witness account substantially matched the medical evidence, and minor variations, antecedents, and absence of independent witnesses did not warrant interference with the conviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellant successfully established the plea of alibi so as to dislodge the concurrent findings of guilt. (ii) Whether the FIR was ante-timed or the inquest report and post-mortem report created a fatal discrepancy. (iii) Whether any inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence, or reliance on antecedents and absence of independent witnesses, warranted interference with the conviction.

Issue (i): Whether the appellant successfully established the plea of alibi so as to dislodge the concurrent findings of guilt.

Analysis: The burden to prove alibi lay on the accused, and it had to be established with certainty so as to exclude the possibility of presence at the scene. The defence evidence did not prove the x-ray, the alleged medical advice, or contemporaneous hospital records. The doctor said to have treated the appellant was not examined. The materials relied upon were therefore incomplete and did not rebut the prosecution evidence or the concurrent appreciation of facts by the courts below.

Conclusion: The plea of alibi failed, and the conviction was not liable to be interfered with.

Issue (ii): Whether the FIR was ante-timed or the inquest report and post-mortem report created a fatal discrepancy.

Analysis: The FIR was recorded promptly after the incident, the inquest was prepared soon thereafter, and the body was sent for post-mortem without undue delay. The inquest report is not substantive evidence and its limited purpose is to ascertain the apparent cause of death in suspicious circumstances. A difference in the number of injuries noted in the inquest and post-mortem reports did not, by itself, render the prosecution version unreliable, especially when the medical evidence from the post-mortem explained the fatal injuries.

Conclusion: The FIR was not shown to be ante-timed, and the discrepancy between the inquest report and post-mortem report was not fatal.

Issue (iii): Whether any inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence, or reliance on antecedents and absence of independent witnesses, warranted interference with the conviction.

Analysis: The eye-witness account remained substantially consistent with the medical evidence that the deceased suffered gunshot and knife injuries. Minor or peripheral variations, including uncertainty about firing distance, did not outweigh the overall prosecution case. The reference to antecedents did not form the basis of the conviction, and the absence of independent witnesses was not decisive where the direct evidence of eye-witnesses was found credible.

Conclusion: No material inconsistency or evidentiary defect was shown that would justify reversal of the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution case was held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the concurrent convictions and sentences were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A plea of alibi must be proved with certainty by the accused, and minor discrepancies between inquest and post-mortem evidence do not vitiate an otherwise reliable prosecution case when the eye-witness account and medical evidence substantially corroborate each other.

---