Eye witnesses are close relatives of the deceased and they have not described any reasoning to go behind the deceased on the day of occurrence. Moreover, eyewitnesses are not the witnesses of identification of dead body in relevant column of inquest report nor they identified the dead body of the deceased at the time of post-mortem, in this way, they are interested and chanced witnesses, there evidence is not worthy of reliance
It is by now well settled that medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the prosecution version with regard to receipt of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not identify the assailant.
This fact do not appeal to a prudent mind that when the accused has decided to conceal the weapon of offence and he was arrested 16 days of the occurrence then he will retain the same in his home to produce before the Investigating Officer of the case as a souvenir. While extending the benefit of doubt appellant was acquitted from the charge.
0 Comments