Ocular Testimony Lacking Specificity and Materially Inconsistent with Medical Evidence Cannot Sustain a Criminal Conviction

The prosecution alleged that on July 1, 1993, while the informant (PW4) and his nephew (PW3) were ploughing their field, the accused (including the appellant) arrived armed with firearms, unyoked their oxen, and opened fire

The motive was a pending land dispute

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing him to two years of rigorous imprisonment

The appeal for Appellant No. 1 (Binod Singh) abated due to his death

The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence and the Trial Court’s improper focus on land titles rather than criminal liability

1. Whether the Trial Court erred by evaluating the case as a civil property dispute (preponderance of probabilities) rather than a criminal trial (beyond reasonable doubt)

2. Whether the ocular testimony of the injured witnesses was reconcilable with the medical evidence and injury reports

3. Whether the prosecution proved the use of a firearm and common intention as required under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act

The Court applied Section 324 of the IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) and Section 34 regarding common intention

It relied on the evidentiary principle that while ocular testimony generally prevails over medical testimony, the former may be disbelieved if it is "totally irreconcilable" with medical findings, as established in Sri Chikkegowda & Others v. State of Karnataka (2025 INSC 1213) and Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab

Section 27 of the Arms Act requires strict proof of the use of a firearm

The High Court found that the Trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by treating the case like a civil suit regarding land possession rather than focusing on the criminal ingredients of assault

On merits, the court noted a "totally irreconcilable" conflict: the injured witnesses (PW3 and PW4) testified to receiving a single gunshot each, yet the medical reports (Exhibits 1 and 1/1) revealed 28 pellet injuries on PW4 and 19 on PW3

The court observed that pellets are fired from shotguns, whereas the witnesses alleged the use of a "Katta" (pistol) or single-barrel gun, and the specific manner of attack was not explained

Additionally, the Investigating Officer (PW6) failed to recover any empty cartridges, firearms, or even find bloodstains at the alleged place of occurrence

Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish the actus reus and the connection between the appellant and the alleged crime

It held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to the extreme contradictions between the ocular version and medical reality, coupled with the lack of physical evidence (arms seizure or blood)

The appellant was acquitted of all charges under Section 324/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and discharged from his bail bonds