Entries in an accident register cannot be used to discredit otherwise unassailable eyewitness testimony.

The Appellant/accused was married to the deceased, Pon Irul. Due to the accused’s suspicions regarding her chastity, the deceased resided with her parents

On 24.11.2017, while the deceased was walking to a hospital with her parents (PW1 and PW2), the accused allegedly intercepted her, pulled her hair, and slit her throat with a knife (MO1) in an open field

The deceased was taken to the hospital but succumbed to injuries en route.

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 342 and 302 of the IPC

On appeal, the accused challenged the conviction primarily on a discrepancy: while PW1 and PW2 claimed the incident occurred in an open field, the Accident Register (Ex.P9) recorded the deceased stating the attack happened while she was "working in her house"

1. Whether the discrepancy between the eyewitness accounts (location: open field) and the entry in the Accident Register (location: house) is sufficient to discredit the prosecution's case

2. Whether the entries made by a medical professional in an Accident Register (AR) carry the status of an absolute statement or "gospel truth" that can override credible ocular evidence

The Court applied Sections 302 (Murder) and 342 (Wrongful Confinement) of the IPC, and Section 32 (Dying Declaration) and Section 6 (Res Gestae) of the Indian Evidence Act

It relied on the precedent in Pattipati Venkaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which established that a doctor’s primary duty is to save lives, not to record the details of the crime or identify assailants

per P. Babu v. State of A.P. and Saranraj v. State, the court held that AR entries are intended for medical treatment purposes and need not possess scientific or investigative precision

The court also invoked the "conscientious judicial mind" standard for "reasonable doubt" from State of Haryana v. Bhagirath

The Court observed that the testimony of PW1 and PW2 was consistent, corroborated by their Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements, and inspired confidence despite their relationship to the deceased

Regarding the discrepancy in the Accident Register (Ex.P9), the Court reasoned that a doctor (PW8) focuses on emergency treatment rather than investigative details

The Court emphasized that AR entries are merely a relevant piece of evidence to understand medical history and cannot be elevated to a status that discredits unassailable eyewitness accounts

It held that "reasonable doubt" is not a technical tool to be applied to every segment of evidence but must be a doubt that a conscientious mind entertains after considering the entire evidence

Since the medical evidence (postmortem) corroborated the nature of injuries described by the eyewitnesses, the minor discrepancy regarding the exact location mentioned in the AR was deemed irrelevant

The Court dismissed the criminal appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Fast Track Mahalir Court, Ramanathapuram, upholding the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and six months simple imprisonment under Section 342 IPC