https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456110 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. en-us Thu, 02 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 29 Jun 2024 13:06:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456110 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Feb 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456110