Ocular evidence prevails over medical evidence unless internal or external injuries are completely ruled out medically.

On September 7, 2011, during a community dinner in village Badagaon, an altercation occurred between the deceased, Pappu, and one Badu. Badu summoned Rakesh and Kailash.

Rakesh allegedly assaulted Pappu on the head with a luhangi (iron-bound stick), while Kailash assaulted him with a lathi (wooden staff).

Pappu succumbed to head injuries the following day.

The Trial Court convicted Rakesh and Kailash under Section 302/34 IPC.

During the pendency of the appeal, Rakesh expired, leading to the abatement of his appeal; the proceedings continued solely against Appellant No. 2, Kailash.

1. Whether the ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses can be discarded if it appears inconsistent with medical evidence regarding the specific site of injury.

2. Whether an accused can be held vicariously liable for murder under Section 34 of the IPC when the fatal injury was attributed to a co-accused.

3. Whether the non-recovery or absence of a forensic report for the weapon of offence is fatal to the prosecution’s case.

The court applied Section 302 (Murder) and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC, establishing that act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention makes each person liable as if it were done by him alone.

It relied on Bhajan Singh v. State of Haryana and CBI v. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum, holding that ocular evidence prevails over medical evidence unless the latter completely rules out the former.

Relying on Rakesh v. State of U.P. and Goverdhan v. State of Chhattisgarh, the court affirmed that the recovery of the weapon of crime is not a sine qua non for conviction if trustworthy eyewitness accounts exist.

The Court observed that while medical reports lacked a specific external injury on the deceased's back (where Kailash allegedly struck), such a discrepancy does not negate the overall credibility of the consistent eyewitness accounts of PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4.

The Court reasoned that in a multi-person assault, witnesses cannot be expected to provide minute-by-minute anatomical details.

Regarding Section 34 IPC, the Court found that Kailash’s presence, use of a weapon, and participation alongside Rakesh clearly demonstrated a shared common intention to cause death; thus, whether Kailash caused the specific fatal head injury was legally immaterial.

The Court dismissed the defense's theory that injuries resulted from an accidental fall while intoxicated, as the medical examiner (PW-12) specifically ruled out such a possibility.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of Appellant No. 2, Kailash.

The appeal filed by Rakesh was dismissed as abated due to his death.

The Court ordered Kailash to surrender within one month to undergo his remaining sentence.