Recently, the Supreme Court of India emphasized an eyewitness to a brutal murder cannot provide a detailed, moment-by-moment description of the knife wounds inflicted on the victim, resembling a screenplay. The Court placed greater importance on the direct visual testimony of the witness rather than relying solely on the opinion of a medical expert to uphold the conviction of an individual in a murder case.
Case Brief-
In the said matter, the court rejected an appeal filed by Rameshji Amarsing Thakor, challenging the orders of Gujarat High Court which had reversed the trial court's order of acquittal.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi rejected discrepancies pointed out by the appellant in deposition of prosecution witnesses as being minor ones.
"We are satisfied that the Trial Court had ignored the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and referred to very minor contradictions in support of its judgement of acquittal. The contradiction in number of injuries was not fatal to the prosecution case. Nor can the prosecution case altogether be negated because the fatal injuries, in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon could not have been caused by the recovered knife," the bench said.
Further, the Court mentioned that the eyewitness account was consistent - that the deceased was stabbed by the Thakor and on this count there was no inconsistency.
"Even if in the opinion of the autopsy surgeon there was mismatch of the knife with the injuries caused, the doctor’s evidence cannot eclipse ocular evidence. The evidence on post occurrence events is consistent," the bench said.
The appellant based their argument on the statement from the autopsy surgeon, who asserted that the injuries sustained by the deceased could not have been caused by the weapon that was recovered.
Nevertheless, the Court determined that there were ample corroborations of the eyewitness's testimony in the depositions provided by witnesses who observed events following the infliction of injuries on the deceased
By giving refrece of 'Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab' (2012) in which greater importance to ocular evidence was given over opinion of the medical expert.
"We find no reason to interfere with the judgement under appeal. It has been held in the case of 'Gurbachan Singh Vs. Satpal Singh and Others' (1990) that exaggerated devotion to rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts letting guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law," the bench said.
In the present case, the court observed that two other accused individuals, who were alleged to have been holding the deceased at the time when the appellant was delivering knife blows, have not been found guilty or convicted.
“Since there was no appeal by the state against the said judgment as regards the other two co accused persons, we refrain from making any comment on that aspect of the High Court judgment,” the bench said.
The case related to the murder of Jayantibhai, which occurred in the evening of July 10, 1995, as a result of knife wounds. The deceased's brother filed the First Information Report (FIR), accusing the appellant of committing the murder. Two additional individuals were implicated for allegedly restraining the deceased during the incident. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of an eyewitness and the dying declarations made in front of two other witnesses. However, the trial court acquitted all three accused individuals primarily due to the weight of medical evidence presented during the trial.
Case Title - Rameshji Amarsing Thakor Vs. State of Gujarat
Click here to Read/Download the order
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy