Supreme Court on Importance of Ocular Evidence in Criminal Cases

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.