Ocular testimony must be disbelieved when medical evidence completely rules out the prosecution's version of the incident.

The prosecution alleged that on July 18, 1986, at approximately 8:00 AM, the informant (PW-1), his father Kunjal Prasad (the deceased), and Udai Bhan (PW-2) were traveling to village Sangrampur to hire laborers

Near 'Gaviyan Talab', four accused persons—Bachan Singh, Jageshwar, Jagdish, and Ram Kumar—surrounded the deceased.

Following an exhortation by Jageshwar, the accused opened fire with guns and 'tamanchhas' at close range, causing the deceased’s death

The trial court (Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur) convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC on September 1, 1987

During the pendency of the appeal, Appellant No. 2, Ram Kumar, died, and the appeal against him abated on February 2, 2026

The defense contended that the F.I.R. was a result of consultation, the witnesses were interested/chance witnesses, and there was a significant conflict between the ocular testimony and medical evidence

1. Whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) is reliable given the deep-rooted enmity between the parties and contradictions in their accounts?

2. Whether the medical evidence regarding the nature and distance of injuries contradicts the oral testimony to the extent of vitiating the prosecution case?

3. Whether the presence of fecal matter in the deceased’s large intestine contradicts the prosecution’s timeline of the incident?

The court primarily applied Section 302 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding murder and common intention

It relied on the principle from S. Govindaraju v. State of Karnataka (2013), which establishes that material contradictions and improvements that create serious doubt regarding a witness’s truthfulness render it unsafe to rely on such evidence

Regarding the conflict between ocular and medical evidence, the court applied the doctrine from Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) and State of U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009), holding that while ocular testimony generally has primacy, it may be disbelieved if the medical evidence completely rules out the possibility of the ocular version being true

The court observed that the deep-rooted enmity between the parties made the motive a "double-edged weapon," potentially leading to false implications

The court found PW-1’s presence doubtful because, despite the alleged enmity, the accused supposedly left him unharmed

Furthermore, there were material contradictions between PW-1 and PW-2 regarding how they met on the day of the incident

Crucially, the court identified a fatal conflict between the oral and medical evidence: the witnesses claimed three shots were fired from 7–10 steps away, but the medical examiner (PW-5) found four wounds, including one "close-range" shot fired from within four feet

Additionally, the post-mortem report revealed the large intestine was full of fecal matter, contradicting the prosecution's claim that the deceased had already relieved himself and was shot at 8:00 AM; this suggested the deceased was likely killed much earlier in the morning by unknown persons

The court concluded that these inconsistencies were not minor but went to the root of the case, making the ocular testimony "totally irreconcilable" with the medical findings

The High Court allowed the appeal for Appellant No. 1, Jagdish, and set aside the trial court’s judgment and order dated September 1, 1987

Appellant Jagdish was acquitted of all charges, his bail bonds were cancelled, and his sureties were discharged