Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court

"Where the ocular evidence is directly and irreconcilably in conflict with clear medical evidence, rendering the prosecution story improbable, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused." Allahabad High Court, in a judgment dated September 29, 2026, acquitted the surviving appellant in a murder case, holding that the prosecution's failure to reconcile glaring inconsistencies between ocular testimony and medical findings, coupled with the unexplained non-examination of material witnesses, fundamentally undermined the case.

A division bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay observed that "where direct evidence is not supported by the expert evidence, then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence."

The case arose from a murder incident in the intervening night of July 7-8, 1985, in Village Pathraki, Etah. The informant, Prem Kumar (PW-1), alleged that the deceased, Dal Chand, was killed by Uday Bhan Singh (appellant) and others due to long-standing civil litigation over agricultural land. The trial court had convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, primarily based on the testimony of the informant and a chance witness, Shankar (PW-2).

The court was called upon to determine whether the conviction could be sustained in the presence of direct contradictions between the ocular testimony—which alleged a point-blank gunshot—and the medical report, which ruled out close-range firing. Additionally, the court addressed the impact of the prosecution's failure to examine natural, material witnesses who were present at the crime scene and the admissibility of a chance witness whose statement was recorded with significant delay.

Medical Evidence as a Tool to Test Ocular Credibility

The bench noted that PW-1 specifically testified that the appellant fired at the deceased’s chest from a close range. However, the medical officer (PW-4) categorically stated that blackening, tattooing, and scorching were absent on the body, which effectively ruled out close-range firing. The court emphasized that while ocular evidence is generally paramount, it becomes unreliable when medical evidence makes the prosecution's version scientifically improbable.

Court Explains Discrepancy Between Ocular and Expert Evidence

 "Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. Unless, however, the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out," the court noted, citing the principle that fundamental defects in the prosecution's narrative, when left unexplained, warrant an acquittal.

"If the eyewitness(es) is deliberately kept back, the court may draw inference against the prosecution and may, in a proper case, regard the failure of the prosecutor to examine the said witnesses as constituting a serious infirmity in the proof of the prosecution case."

Adverse Inference for Withholding Material Witnesses The prosecution failed to examine the wife and daughter of the deceased, who were sleeping on adjacent cots at the time of the incident. The court held that their non-examination, without a reasonable explanation, triggered an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. The court maintained that witnesses essential to "unfolding the narrative" must be produced to ensure a fair trial, and their absence casts a serious reflection on the prosecution's case.

Unreliability of Chance Witnesses The court further scrutinized the testimony of PW-2, the alleged chance witness who claimed to be waiting on a road at 2:00 AM to load mangoes. The bench found this testimony "wholly unnatural" and noted that the statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded after an unexplained five-day delay. The court concluded that this witness was likely introduced as a post-facto arrangement to bolster a weak prosecution case.

Given the convergence of medical contradiction, the withholding of key witnesses, and the questionable status of the chance witness, the High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Date of Decision: 29 September 2026