The central distinction
There is also enough evidence adduced by the Prosecution to hold that the Appellants had the clear motive to eliminate the Deceased. An illicit/incestuous relationship between Accused No. -1 i.e., Ms. Uma and Accused No. -2 i.e., Mr. Ravi had become known to the Deceased Rajalakshmi & her family, and she had become a stumbling block in the relationship, which swelled the common intention of the Appellants to murder her. The factum that the Deceased has passed away within six months of her marriage also becomes a relevant consideration to attribute culpable intent of the Appellants. {Para 25}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal Nos. 757 of 2015 and 67 of 2016 +
Decided On: 22.10.2024
UMA and Ors. Vs. The State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Bela M. Trivedi and S.C. Sharma, JJ.
Author: S.C. Sharma, J.
Citation: 2024 INSC 809,MANU/SC/1139/2024
Print PageWe are disposed to think so when we weigh the medical testimony vis-a-vis the ocular testimony. There is no dispute that the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner as alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. It is also true that the post-mortem report by itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but the evidence of the doctor conducting the post-mortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The significance of the evidence of the doctor lies vis-a-vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of the weapon and it would then be the prosecutor's duty and obligation to have the corroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecution witnesses. It is also an accepted principle that sufficient weightage should be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post-mortem, as compared to the statements found in the textbooks, but giving weightage does not ipso facto mean that each and every statement made by a medical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it is self-contradictory. It is also a settled principle that the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the Court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. That apart, it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which are to be tested independently and not treated as the 'variable' keeping the medical evidence as the 'constant'. Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to the alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. {Para 13}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 2153 of 2011
Decided On: 10.03.2015
Vijay Pal Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dipak Misra and N.V. Ramana, JJ.
Author: Dipak Misra, J.
Citation: 2015 (2) Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 733, 2015 INSC 194, MANU/SC/0230/2015, AIR 2015 SUPREME COURT 1495, 2015 (4) SCC 749.
Print PageA very relevant piece of evidence which has been noticed by the High Court, but not given due consideration, is that apart from the blood-stained knife (Ex. P-3) and certain other items mentioned in the letter of Investigating Officer, one sealed cardboard parcel containing blue soaked boiler suit worn by the deceased at the time of incident was also sent to CFSL for examination and opinion. In the said sealed cardboard box, two Exhibits (2a and 2b) were found. Ex. 2a was the dark blue coloured boiler suit and the Ex. 2b was metallic blade fitted in a wooden handle like a knife. The length of the metallic blade is about 5.5 centimeter with one edge sharp and another blunt having a round tip at one end. None of the prosecution witnesses including the Investigating Officer, stated anything as to how and wherefrom the said knife (Ex. 2b) was recovered and kept with the boiler suit in the same cardboard box. This knife (Ex. 2b) also bore human blood-stained matching 'O' group of the deceased. As per the post mortem report, stab wounds on the neck and chest of the deceased might be by the use of the said weapon Ex. 2b. The said knife (Ex. 2b) was not subjected to examination to find out the presence of fingerprints, if any, of the Appellant. The said knife (Ex. 2b) was also not shown to the doctor (PW-19) who conducted the post mortem examination on the body of the deceased, to seek his opinion if the same could have been possible weapon of offence. Even the opinion of the expert witness (PW-22) was not sought as to whether the cuts on the boiler suit could have been caused by that knife. {Para 29}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal No. 1300 of 2009
Decided On: 01.07.2013
Majendran Langeswaran Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P. Sathasivam and M.Y. Eqbal, JJ.
Author: M.Y. Eqbal, J.
Citation: 2013 INSC 401, MANU/SC/0631/2013,AIR 2013 SUPREME COURT 2790, 2013 (7) SCC 192,
