Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon. Tube-light, which has been shown as source of the light was not taken into possession and as such it hampers the prosecution case.

 2022 SCMR 1931

The delay of about eight hours in conducting postmortem examination is also not beneficial to the petitioner/convict.

So far as the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. .12 bore rifle is concerned, admittedly no empty was recovered from the place of occurrence, which could be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis, therefore, the recovery is inconsequential.

Tube-light, which has been shown as source of the light was not taken into possession and as such it hampers the prosecution case. However, this aspect of the argument has no legal foundation. Firstly, it depends upon the ownership of the article, which ultimately provided the source for identification, and secondly, it is for the Investigating Officer either he deems it essential or otherwise Even if this aspect of the argument is evaluated broadly, it is suffice to state that this principle is not absolute because it depends upon (i) source, (ii) question of ownership, (iii) public or private, & (iv) essential to show the source. When all these matters are taken into consideration, it is established that it was a tube-light and as such the same cannot be made part of case property merely on the ground that the assailant was identified from the source, which has been shown. This source of light is also established from the rough site plan as well as scaled site plan, which is essential part of the prosecution case.

Substitution in such like cases is a rare phenomenon. The complainant would not prefer to spare the real culprit who murdered his son and falsely involve the petitioner without any rhyme and reason.

It is settled that casual discrepancies and conflicts appearing in medical evidence and the ocular version are quite possible for variety of reasons. During occurrence when live shots are being fired, witnesses in a momentary glance make only tentative assessment of points where such fire shots appeared to have landed and it becomes highly improbable to mention their location with exactitude.

While appreciating the evidence, the court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies and such minor discrepancies which do not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored. The accused cannot claim premium of such minor discrepancies. If importance be given to such insignificant inconsistencies then there would hardly be any conviction.