I.P.C., Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 302, 307 Criminal trial/medical evidence, eye witness, difference, statement of deceased to police, whether can be relied.
Previous enmity between two families wife of deceased is an eyewitness and an injured witness – she attributed specific overt acts to each accused – when she intervened she was attacked and sustained injuries on her head and hands – She explained that occurrence took place at late night hours and that villagers were afraid to intervene Statement given by deceased in the hospital cannot be ignored – Even if the statement is not treated as a formal dying declaration, it is still an important statement made by an injured person while he was undergoing treatment – It forms the basis of registration of the FIR.
Entries made in the accident registers during the course of treatment clearly show that both the deceased and pw1 stated that they were attacked by known persons with weapons, thereby lending support to the prosecution case.
Discrepancy between ocular evidence and medical evidence – Testimony of eyewitnesses ordinarily carries greater weight unless it is wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence – Entries made by the doctor in the medical records cannot be treated as substantive evidence and are mainly relevant to indicate the nature of the injuries, the possible weapon used and the time of occurrence -Testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution.
This Criminal Appeal was filed by the defacto complainant, who is the wife of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and accused had longstanding enmity and the deceased along with his family were charged for the murder of the 1st accused’s father and due to the above said vengeance, on the date of occurrence, when the deceased and his wife were lying in front of their house, the accused 1 to 6 formed an unlawful assembly with the intention of murdering the deceased and the 1st accused abused the deceased and the accused 1 and 2 attacked the deceased by using knives and the 3rd accused attacked the deceased by using the Iron Pipe and the accused 4 to 6 caught hold of the deceased and restrained him and facilitated the assault and when the appellant attempted to prevent the said attack, the accused 4 to 6 assaulted her and A1 and A2 attacked the appellant by using knives and the 3rd accused attacked her with an Iron Pipe and the deceased and her wife were admitted in the hospital by their son through ambulance and due to the said injury, deceased died and the appellant had injuries in her body, so the accused 1 to 6 committed the offences u/s. 147, 148, 294(b), 307 and 302 of IPC. After the trial, the accused were acquitted by the Trial Court. To challenge the said judgment, the wife of the deceased (P.W.1) has filed the present appeal.
The Hon’ble High Court finds that there was a longstanding land dispute between the deceased and the accused, and in an earlier quarrel, the father of the 1st accused died, for which a murder case was registered against the members of the deceased family. From the above, the prosecution proved the motive for the alleged murder in the present case through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5. The Hon’ble High Court further finds that P.W.1 is both an eyewitness and an injured witness and her testimony is clear, consistent and natural and being an injured witness, her presence at the scene cannot be doubted and in her cross-examination, minor discrepancies relating to exact time do not affect the core of her evidence and the main narrative that the accused came armed, attacked the deceased and injured her has remained consistent throughout and P.W.3, an independent witness, residing in the same village, has corroborated her version and though suggestions were made regarding political rivalry and previous cases, no material has been elicited in the cross-examination to discredit his (P.W.3) core testimony and his presence in the village at that hour appears natural.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that though the deceased could not be examined during trial due to his death, the statement given by him in the hospital cannot be ignored and even if the statement is not treated as a formal dying declaration, it is still an important statement made by an injured person while he was undergoing treatment and the case is not based solely on such statement or complaint and such statement is also corroborated by P.W.1 and P.W.3 and the entries made in the Accident Registers during the course of treatment clearly show that both the deceased and P.W.1 stated that they were attacked by known persons with weapons, thereby lending support to the prosecution case and the doctor (P.W.11) has clearly stated in the Post-mortem Certificate (Ex.P-19) that the deceased died due to head injury and blood loss, so the medical evidence clearly shows that the deceased sustained multiple injuries, which resulted in death and it is well settled law that where there is a discrepancy between ocular evidence and medical evidence, the testimony of eye witnesses ordinarily carries greater weight unless it is wholly inconsistent with the medical evidence and the medical evidence is primarily intended to lend assurance to the prosecution case and cannot by itself discredit the testimony of eyewitnesses unless it clearly demonstrates that the occurrence could not have taken place in the manner spoken to by them and the entries made by the doctor in the medical records cannot be treated as substantive evidence and are mainly relevant to indicate the nature of the injuries, the possible weapon used, and the time of occurrence and the inconsistencies stated by the Trial Court in the Accident Registers and in the Post-mortem Certificate cannot outweigh the otherwise reliable eye witness evidence on record and the medical evidence of P.W.10 and P.W.11 also supports the prosecution’s case.
The Hon’ble High Court further observed that though P.W.2 and P.W.6 turned partially hostile, they admitted their signatures in the mahazars and it is settled law that the testimony of a hostile witness can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution and P.W.7 has stated that the accused were interrogated in his presence and that based on the information given by them, two knives and an iron rod were recovered under a mahazar, in which he signed as a witness and P.W.8 and P.W.9 have also identified their signatures in the confession statements and the related documents and though some of these witnesses do not recollect all the procedural details and partly resiled from certain aspects of the prosecution case, they have not denied their signatures in the relevant documents and their evidence, taken as a whole, indicates that the recovery proceedings were conducted in their presence, so the recovery of the knives and iron rod from the place pointed out by the accused stands proved and P.W.12 (the Scientific Officer) has reported absence of alcohol or poison in the viscera and P.W.13 (Assistant Director of Forensic Science Department) has detected bloodstains on the iron rod, knife and other seized materials and though in some instances the blood was decomposed, the presence of blood on the weapons corroborate their use in the assault and as for the minor contradictions in the evidence, they cannot be taken as a valid reason to doubt the prosecution case, especially since the incident happened in 2013 and the witnesses were examined only in 2018 and since P.W.4 and P.W.5 were not present at the exact time of occurrence and came only after receiving information, sometime would naturally have been taken to shift the injured and the incident occurred late at night in a village and the injured were moved in the early morning hours and the medical records show that the injuries were fresh and consistent with the occurrence, so the minor variations or delay cannot be taken as a ground to reject the otherwise clear and consistent evidence of the prosecution. From the above, the Hon’ble High Court held that the prosecution has proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused were convicted for the offences u/s. 148, 294(b), 302 and 307 r/w 149 of IPC and sentences were passed for the offences u/s. 302, 307 r/w. 149 of IPC and since the accused have been awarded the sentence of life imprisonment for the major offence, the Hon’ble High Court has not passed separate sentence for the offences u/s. 148 and 294(b) of the IPC.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed
Tmt. Rani Vs. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Pennadam Police Station, Cuddalore District & Others [Crl. A. No.440/2019] [2026 (1) L.W.(Crl.) 429] Date of Judgment: 25.02.2026
