Admissibility of draftsman's plan and medical inconsistency led to acquittal after prosecution doubt remained unresolved.

Witness pointings-out to a draftsman during investigation were treated by the majority as admissible where the draftsman independently measured and recorded the distance, so the material was not barred as a police statement under Section 162 CrPC. However, the conviction failed because the ocular account was inconsistent with the medical evidence on firing distance and the investigation showed unexplained delays in sending the cartridge case and taking other steps. Those discrepancies made the prosecution case unsafe beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellant was acquitted with the conviction and death sentence set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the draftsman's plan showing the distance between the assailant and the deceased, based on what witnesses pointed out during investigation, was admissible in view of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code. (ii) Whether the conviction could be sustained when the ocular version conflicted with the medical evidence and the investigation disclosed suspicious delays.

Issue (i): Whether the draftsman's plan showing the distance between the assailant and the deceased, based on what witnesses pointed out during investigation, was admissible in view of Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis: The majority held that the map prepared by the draftsman was not merely a police-derived sketch but evidence of what the eye-witnesses pointed out to a person other than the investigating officer, who also measured and noted the distance himself. On that footing, the evidence was treated as legal evidence and not as barred police-statement material under Section 162.

Conclusion: The evidence was held admissible.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction could be sustained when the ocular version conflicted with the medical evidence and the investigation disclosed suspicious delays.

Analysis: The majority found that the medical evidence indicated a very close-range shot, whereas the site plan evidence suggested a much longer distance. The Court also noted unexplained delays in sending the recovered cartridge case and other investigative steps, which cast doubt on the prosecution case. In these circumstances, the eye-witness testimony was considered unsafe to accept beyond reasonable doubt. The separate opinion agreed with the result but took a different view on admissibility under Section 162, holding that the draftsman's evidence was inadmissible because it amounted to prior statements made during investigation in the presence of police.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution case was held not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: Evidence of a witness's pointings-out to a draftsman during police investigation is admissible only if it is not in substance a statement made in the course of investigation barred by Section 162; where the prosecution case is otherwise shaken by medical inconsistency and unexplained investigative delays, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.

---