2002 (1) TMI 1352 - SC - Indian Laws

Prosecution unreliable with medical-evidence conflicts and suspicious Section 27 recoveries; accused acquitted and released, State appeal dismissed

The SC held the prosecution's case unreliable and riddled with inconsistencies, noting medical evidence contradicted eyewitness accounts and important ... - Issues Involved:1. Admissibility and significance of postmortem report and medical evidence.2. Credibility of eyewitness testimony.3. Inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.4. Legality of disclosure statements and recoveries.5. Evaluation of defense evidence.6. Applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.7. High Court's acquittal of one accused.Detailed Analysis:1. Admissibility and Significance of Postmortem Report and Medical Evidence:The court emphasized that while a postmortem report is not substantive evidence, the testimony of the doctor who conducted the postmortem is significant, especially regarding injuries and the likely weapon used. The court noted that the medical evidence did not align with the prosecution's narrative. Dr. Kataria's testimony indicated that injuries No. 1, 2, and 3 were from three independent shots, with injury No. 1 possibly caused by a heavy weapon. The absence of an X-ray report and bone pieces further weakened the prosecution's case.2. Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony:The court scrutinized the eyewitness testimony, particularly that of Budh Ram (PW-8), who claimed to have witnessed the shooting and subsequent actions. The court found inconsistencies between his testimony and the medical evidence, which showed different directions and types of gunshot wounds than those described by the eyewitnesses. The court also noted that all eyewitnesses were related to the deceased and were under police custody, which required their testimony to be scrutinized with caution.3. Inconsistencies in the Prosecution's Case:The court highlighted several inconsistencies, such as the discrepancy in the arrest and disclosure statement dates of accused Ram Singh. The High Court had acquitted Ram Singh based on these inconsistencies, as he was allegedly arrested on 13.2.1992 but had a disclosure statement dated 29.1.1992. The court also pointed out that the bones found at the crime scene were not shown to the postmortem doctor, which cast doubt on their relevance.4. Legality of Disclosure Statements and Recoveries:The court examined the legality of the disclosure statements and recoveries. It cited the Privy Council's ruling in Pulukuri Kotayya v. Emperor, emphasizing that the 'fact discovered' must relate distinctly to the information given by the accused. The court found that the prosecution's handling of disclosures and recoveries was questionable, as all were witnessed by the same individuals (Budh Ram, Dholu Ram, and Atma Ram), raising doubts about their authenticity.5. Evaluation of Defense Evidence:The court criticized the High Court for casually rejecting the defense evidence. It noted that defense witnesses should be given equal treatment and respect as prosecution witnesses. The defense had suggested that the deceased was missing for 2-3 days before the alleged murder, which the prosecution failed to counter with independent evidence.6. Applicability of Section 27 of the Evidence Act:The court reiterated that Section 27 of the Evidence Act provides an exception but must be applied cautiously to prevent police manipulation. It stressed that information leading to discovery must be genuine and not fabricated by the police.7. High Court's Acquittal of One Accused:The court agreed with the High Court's decision to acquit Ram Singh due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence. However, it extended this reasoning to the other accused, finding the entire prosecution case unreliable due to the numerous inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence.Conclusion:The Supreme Court found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies and unreliable evidence. It criticized the High Court for not adequately considering the contradictions between medical evidence and eyewitness testimony. The court allowed the appeal, acquitting the remaining accused and ordering their release if not required in other proceedings. The state's appeal was dismissed.