Witness Testimony Inconsistent With Medical Evidence : Supreme Court Alters Conviction For Murder

The Supreme Court has converted the conviction of appellants from Murder (S.302/149) to Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons (326/149) under the Indian Penal Code on the basis of inconsistencies between oral testimony of witnesses and medical evidence on record.

A Bench of Justices L.Nageswara Rao and B.V.Nagarathna relied on Amar Singh v State of Punjab, wherein the Supreme Court had examined the point relating to inconsistencies between oral evidence and medical opinion. In that case, it was held that the inconsistency between the medical evidence on record and the oral evidence of the witnesses was found to be sufficient to discredit the entire prosecution case.

In the present case, there were inconsistencies between the oral evidence of the eye witnesses and the medical report. The Trial Court had observed that the inconsistencies in the testimonies and evidence "were trivial" and that evidence could not be rejected on that ground itself. The High Court in its impugned judgement concurred that the discrepancies in the statements made by the witnesses in Court were held to be minor in nature on the basis of which the Appellants cannot be said to be not guilty.

The Appellants had relied on Amar Singh v State of Punjab [ 1987 1 SCC 679] and Ram Narain Singh v State of Punjab [1975 4 SCC 497] to argue that incongruity between statements of eyewitnesses and medical evidence is vital and thus the accused-appellants are entitled to acquittal.

"In Amar Singh v.State of Punjab (supra), this Court examined the point relating to inconsistencies between the oral evidence and the medical opinion. The medical report submitted therein established that there were only contusions, abrasions and fractures, but there was no incised wound on the left knee of the deceased as alleged by a witness. Therefore, the evidence of the witness was found to be totally inconsistent with the medical evidence and that would be sufficient to discredit the entire prosecution case", the judgment noted.

In the present case, the judgement notes the fatal injury (as noted by the medical report) does not correspond with the weapons used by the Respondents. On this basis, the Court has concluded that the conviction of the Appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not justified.

"In the instant case, the fatal injury was caused by a hard and blunt weapon on the left parietal bone. There is no corresponding injury to the weapons used by Ramesh (A-9), Daulal @ Daulatram (A-12), Mool Chand (A-19) and Shriram  (A-20). Therefore, the conviction of the Appellants under Section 302/149 is not justified", the judgment authored by Justice Rao observed.

However, the Court holds that there is abundant evidence to show that the Appellants attacked the deceased with deadly weapons and therefore it is not a fit case for completely setting aside the prosecution case. The judgement notes:

"In the instant case, the fatal injury was caused by a hard and blunt weapon on the left parietal bone. There is no corresponding injury to the weapons used by Ramesh (A-9), Daulal @ Daulatram (A-12), Mool Chand (A-19) and Shriram (A-20). Therefore, the conviction of the Appellants under Section 302/149 is not justified. However, there is abundant evidence on record to show that the Appellants attacked the deceased and the injured witnesses with deadly weapons. Therefore, the Appellants are liable to be convicted under Section 326 read with 149 IPC." (Para 10)

Due to the aforementioned inconsistencies, the Court has converted the conviction of Appellants from Section 302/149 to 326/149 of the IPC.

Case Name: Viram @ Virma v The State of Madhya Pradesh