Conviction Set Aside Due to Ocular Testimony Contradicting Medical Evidence and Failure to Corroborate Weapon Recovery

The Appellants were convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of Bhagwan Singh and for possession of illegal firearms under Section 302/34 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 10.08.2004, the three Appellants and one absconder entered the informant's premises; two Appellants restrained the informant (PW-1) and his mother (PW-2), while the others shot the deceased.

The motive was alleged to be an altercation regarding an illicit relationship.

The Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, lack of independent witnesses, and doubtful recovery of weapons.

1. Whether the ocular testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 is reliable despite being contradicted by the medical evidence and forensic report.

2. Whether the recovery of the alleged murder weapons from open fields at the instance of the accused satisfies the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

3. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the Appellants beyond reasonable doubt despite the absence of an independent motive and the presence of material improvements in the witnesses' statements.

Section 302/34 (Murder/Common Intention) of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The Court relied on the evidentiary principle from Khambham Raja Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which mandates that if ocular testimony cannot be reconciled with medical evidence to explain how injuries were inflicted, the court may discard the ocular evidence.

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act regarding "discovery of facts," noting that a recovery from an open place accessible to the public cannot be attributed to the exclusive knowledge of the accused.

The Court found the prosecution story highly unnatural, noting that it was improbable for assailants to wake up sleeping witnesses by "catching hold" of them rather than committing the crime silently to avoid identification.

The ocular evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, claiming two shots were fired, was flatly contradicted by the postmortem report (Ex. Ka-12), which recorded only one firearm entry wound.

The forensic laboratory report proved that the cartridge found at the scene did not match the firearm recovered from Appellant Jugendra Singh.

The Court scrutinized the recoveries under the Arms Act, observing that the weapons were found in open fields accessible to everyone ten days after the incident, rendering the discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act legally fragile.

The alleged motive was dismissed as hearsay and rumor, failing to establish a concrete reason for the crime.

The appeals were allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 02.06.2022 was set aside, and the Appellants were ordered to be released forthwith.