Evidence Of Prosecution Witness Being Inconsistent With Medical Evidence Is Most Fundamental Defect In Prosecution's Case: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that if there is an inconsistency between the evidence of the witness for the prosecution and medical evidence, it would signify a fundamental defect in the case of the prosecution, which unless reasonably explained would discredit the entire prosecution case. A single bench of Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul modified the sentence imposed on the accused...
The Calcutta High Court has recently held that if there is an inconsistency between the evidence of the witness for the prosecution and medical evidence, it would signify a fundamental defect in the case of the prosecution, which unless reasonably explained would discredit the entire prosecution case.
A single bench of Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul modified the sentence imposed on the accused who were involved in physical assault, by convicting them u/s 324 IPC instead of 323 IPC and held:
If the evidence of the witness for the prosecution is inconsistent with the medical evidence, this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire case. In the present case, it is on record that there was an altercation between two groups and a free fight took place. Evidence shows assault by lathi or Bamboo. The injuries as discussed above are also not grievous and the instruments as noted by the doctor allegedly used for the assault were not dangerous sharp-edged weapons as alleged. No fracture either in the scalp or elsewhere has been noted.
The appellants along with three others were placed on trial before the Sessions court, and charged for the offences punishable under Sections 149/325/308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was stated that a case was registered for investigation on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Nidhu Saha in 2008 against the appellants herein and four others, for alleged assault with bamboo sticks and sharp weapons on their neighbours.
The defence case was that the evidence on record shows that there was a contradictory description of the place of occurrence and also a contradictory version of the alleged incident.
It was further stated that as the accused had filed a prior case against the complainant, there was a good chance of false implication.
It was stated that the accused persons were also not named before the doctor who examined the injured and that unduly long and compounded questions while examining the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have prejudiced them.
From the evidence, the Court noted that there was fighting between two groups, and that none of he accused were named by the injured before the doctor, and neither was there evidence of the attack being with a sharp weapon.
In analysing the role of a medical expert, the Court noted:
The expert is never given the authority to make decisions, rather, they are made by the Court with assistance from the expert. No piece of evidence can be said to prevail over the others after it has been sorted, tested, analysed, and evaluated unless it is conclusive, convincing, and beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence the value of the medical evidence or expert opinions, in general, depends on the subject's nature.
Accordingly, it held that the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution who stated one-sided assault with the use of sharp weapons was inconsistent with the medical evidence in the present case.
As a result, it modified the conviction from Section 325 IPC to Section 323 IPC and sentenced the accused to time already undergone.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Cal) 121
Case: Paresh Ghosh & Ors. Vs The State of West Bengal
Case No: CRA 365 of 2016