INTRODUCTION
On today’s show, we will discuss the case of Pruthviraj
Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala & Others, Criminal Appeal
No. 177 of 2014, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the importance
of Ocular Evidence in Criminal Cases.
BACKGROUND
Briefly speaking, there was a scuffle between
certain persons who were known to each other, and it was alleged that when the
deceased with his friend [Prosecution Witness Number 2 (PW-2)], was
returning home on a motorcycle at around 2.30 AM at night, the accused persons
assaulted the deceased with Iron Pipe, Steel Rod and Stick, causing three stab
wounds and nine incised wounds. An FIR was lodged promptly, and charges were
framed under Sections 302, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against
the accused persons. However, the High Court acquitted the accused persons on
the ground that the weapons used for the assault could not have caused stab or
incised wounds. The matter traversed to the Supreme Court, and it was contended
by the accused persons that the High Court rightly acquitted them as there was
no light at the place of occurrence making it impossible to identify the
assailants of the deceased and Incised Wounds cannot be caused by a Metal Rod.
In order to understand the matter further, let us
peruse the pertinent observations by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT
Firstly, the Court observed that the testimony of
the friend of the deceased (PW-2) implicating the accused persons has remained
uncontroverted throughout and is corroborated with the testimony of a guard, an
independent witness, who was near the place of incident.
Secondly, the Court observed that from the perusal
of the Seizure Memo, it is evident that the Iron Rod found in the possession of
the accused persons had a Sharp Turn Edge that could cause incised or stab
wounds. Further, the recovery of such weapons has not been disputed by the
accused persons and therefore, there was no need to get forensic corroboration
of the fingerprints of the accused persons on the weapons.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court observed that the High
Court failed to take into account that the Iron Rod had a sharp turn edge and
excessively relied upon the medical evidence.
Fourthly, the Court perused the medical evidence
and noted that the Doctor who conducted the Post-Mortem did admit that incised
injuries are possible from an iron rod that has a turn. Thus, the Court found
no inconsistency between the Ocular and Medical Evidence in the present case.
Fifthly, the Court observed that “Ocular
evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it”
and in the present case, the Ocular Evidence given by the guard (PW-10) and the
friend of the deceased (PW-2) is not inconsistent with the medical evidence. It
was further observed that “it is only in a case where there is a gross contradiction
between medical evidence and oral evidence, and the medical evidence makes the
ocular testimony improbable and rules out all possibility of ocular evidence
being true, [in such cases] the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.”
Sixthly, the Court noted that though there is ample
evidence available on record to suggest presence of light at the place of
incident, yet even if there was no light, then also such fact is irrelevant as
the parties involved were known to each other. Interestingly, the Court also
observed that “the criminal jurisprudence developed in this country
recognizes that the eyesight capacity of those who live in rural areas is far better
than compared to the town folks.”
And lastly, the Court cited the case of Nathuni
Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 9 SCC 238, to explain identification of
persons in place where there is no light or are dark. In such case, it was held
that the relevant factors to be considered are proximity at which the
assailants would have confronted the deceased, possibility of light reaching
from the glow of stars or the Moon, acquaintance between the accused and the deceased
etc. Even if these factors are absent, then also availability of light should
not be an important factor as the same level of light was sufficient for the
assailants to identify the deceased and kill him.
HELD BY THE COURT
Therefore, in light of the above, the Supreme
Court held that the High Court’s Judgment of Acquittal is based on
misappreciation of evidence and was set aside. The conviction of the accused
persons by the Trial Court was restored.
That was all about the case. So, what are my
concluding remarks?
CONCLUSION
This judgment reveals that no evidence is better
than Ocular Evidence and unless the Ocular Evidence is successfully
controverted by some other form of evidence, the same shall continue to remain
reliable. In the instant case, every piece of evidence was against the accused
persons and the only thing in their favour was the confusion about the nature
of the weapon used. The High Court, apparently, confused itself to hold that a
Metal Rod cannot cause incised injuries and relied heavily on it to acquit the
accused persons. However, ocular testimonies given by the friend of the deceased
(PW-2) and the guard (PW-10) does not seem to have been refuted
in any way by the accused persons or the medical evidence. Where such ocular
testimonies remain uncontroverted, they acquire an unimpeachable character and
directly point towards the truth.
The underlying reasoning behind putting Ocular Evidence at a higher pedestal than all the other forms of evidence is that Ocular Evidence is the most direct evidence possible. All the other forms of evidence such as medical evidence, expert evidence are indirect in nature as they rely upon the circumstances to infer what may have happened at the place of incident.
No comments:
Post a Comment