Ocular Testimony Lacking Medical Corroboration and Tainted by Unnatural Witness Conduct Warrants Acquittal in Murder Case

In brief

The question

1. Whether the ocular testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 is reliable and consistent with the medical evidence and site conditions.

The court held

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the ocular testimony was inconsistent with medical evidence and the conduct of the witnesses was suspect.

It also directed

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction dated August 31, 1984. The surviving appellants (Ghulam, Hidayatullah, and Azizullah) were acquitted of all charges under Sections 148, 302, 379, and 404 of the IPC, and their bail bonds were discharged.

01Facts

The prosecution alleged that on September 19, 1981, twelve accused persons, armed with firearms, murdered Sarfaraz Ahmad while he was ploughing a field at Singwahar.

¶ 3

The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by the deceased's father (PW-1), based on information allegedly provided by Moid Ahmad (PW-2).

¶ 3

It was further alleged that the accused snatched a licensed gun from Shabbir (PW-3), stole the deceased’s gun, and took Rs. 500 from his pocket.

¶ 3

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 148, 302/149, 379, and 404 of the IPC.

¶ 11

During the pendency of the appeal, nine appellants died, leaving Ghulam, Hidayatullah, and Azizullah as the surviving appellants.

¶ 13

02Issues

i.1. Whether the ocular testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 is reliable and consistent with the medical evidence and site conditions.

¶ 20–25

ii.2. Whether the established bitter enmity between the parties served as a motive for the crime or a basis for false implication.

¶ 18, 26

iii.3. Whether the prosecution proved its case against the surviving appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

¶ 39

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 302 (Murder), Section 148 (Rioting, armed with deadly weapon), and Section 149 (Unlawful Assembly) of the IPC.

¶ 2

If ocular testimony cannot be reconciled with medical evidence or the circumstances of the injury, the court may exercise discretion to reject the eyewitness account (Khambam Raja Reddy v. Public Prosecutor, (2006) 11 SCC 239).

¶ 24–25

Enmity is a double-edged weapon that can lead to false implication (State of Punjab v. Sucha Singh, (2003) 3 SCC 153).

¶ 26

Grave suspicion cannot substitute for legal proof (Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406).

¶ 27

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 147 Section 148 Section 149 Section 302 Section 379 Section 404 Section 406

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 82 Section 83 Section 161 Section 313

04Reasoning

The Court found the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3 highly improbable. Although both claimed twelve accused fired simultaneously, the post-mortem report revealed only three gunshot entry wounds.

¶ 22–23

The Investigating Officer failed to recover any pellets, bullets, or empty cartridges from the scene, which is unnatural given the alleged mass firing.

¶ 30

The witness photographs (PW-7) suggested the police manually punctured the tractor tyres at the scene to match the prosecution’s story.

¶ 33

The Court noted material contradictions in PW-2’s travel history and found PW-3’s conduct—failing to resist or report the snatching of his own licensed gun—to be unnatural.

¶ 20, 29

Given the long-standing rivalry and the role of PW-1 as an influential Village Pradhan, the Court concluded the witnesses were likely "projected" to frame the accused.

¶ 34–35

05Holding

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the ocular testimony was inconsistent with medical evidence and the conduct of the witnesses was suspect.

¶ 37, 39

¶ 40

LawLens.Allahabad High Court

Original Court PDF