2023 SCMR 190
Under the law, ASI is not authorized to investigate the murder case falling within the ambit of Section 302 PPC.
The doctrine of parity in bail matters encapsulates that like cases should be treated alike, whereas the case of further inquiry pre-supposes the tentative assessment which may create doubt with respect to the involvement of accused in the crime.
There was a confessional statement on the part of all the co-accused is of no avail as the same was made jointly, which has no legal sanctity. Even otherwise, the same is inadmissible in evidence.
As far as the question that the witnesses of the ocular account are related to the deceased, therefore, their testimonies cannot be believed to sustain conviction of the petitioner/convict is concerned, it is by now a well established principle of law that mere relationship of the prosecution witnesses with the deceased cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of such witnesses.
There are various factors which affect blackening e.g. surface of target i.e. wet or dry and the body structure of the victim and the quality of gun powder. Probably, the accused would have extended his arm to shot fire at the deceased. The normal length of the arm of an average man is more than two feet. With this if we add the length of the weapon i.e. .30 bore pistol, the distance between the accused and the deceased remains less than three feet. The deceased was not a static object and he could have changed his position at the time of occurrence. Even otherwise it is settled law that where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring, the same is given preference over medical evidence.
2023 SCMR 190
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 the distance between the deceased and the assailant and the points where such fire shots appeared to have landed and it becomes highly improbable to mention the distance correctly and the location of the fire shots with exactitude.
It is a well settled proposition of law that as long as the material aspects of the evidence have a ring of truth, courts should ignore minor discrepancies in the evidence. The test is whether the evidence of a witness inspires confidence. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter, the defence can take advantage of the same. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not affecting the material considerations of the prosecution case ought not to prompt the courts to reject evidence in its entirety. Such minor discrepancies which do not shake the salient features of the prosecution case should be ignored
0 Comments