When Medical Evidence Makes Ocular Version Improbable, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Acquits in Five-Murder Case

“Cumulative Inconsistencies Between Medical and Oral Evidence Go To The Root Of The Prosecution Case”, In a significant ruling Allahabad High Court set aside the conviction of eleven accused in a case involving the alleged murder of five persons and injury to a minor child, primarily on account of serious inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence.

The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Rajnish Kumar, J. and Hon’ble Zafeer Ahmad, J., held that although ocular evidence ordinarily prevails over medical opinion, where medical findings render the prosecution’s version improbable and contradictions strike at the core of the case, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court ultimately acquitted the appellants of offences under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149, 452 and 404 IPC.

Five Murders Allegedly Witnessed by Family Members

The prosecution case was that on the night of 11 February 2001, fifteen named accused along with 7–8 unknown persons attacked a family in Village Meharavan Khera, District Unnao, due to longstanding enmity. Five persons were killed and a minor, Arvind (P.W.3), was injured.

The Trial Court had convicted eleven accused and awarded life imprisonment under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC, along with other concurrent sentences. The High Court was called upon to re-evaluate the appreciation of evidence, particularly in light of the alleged contradictions.

Sharp-Edged Weapons Alleged, But No Corresponding Injuries

One of the most striking aspects noticed by the High Court was the mismatch between the oral account of assault and the injuries found during post-mortem examinations.

For instance, P.W.1 (widow of deceased Ram Khelawan) deposed that her husband was assaulted by axes, lathis and dandas by multiple assailants inside a small room. However, the post-mortem report of Ram Khelawan revealed only incised wounds caused by a sharp-edged weapon. There were no lathi or blunt-force injuries corresponding to the alleged assault by several persons.

The Bench noted that if a large number of accused had beaten the deceased with lathis and dandas as claimed, “there should have been injuries commensurate to such assault,” which were conspicuously absent.

Similarly, in the case of other deceased persons, the ocular narrative suggested collective assault by many accused, yet medical evidence did not fully corroborate the multiplicity or nature of weapons allegedly used.

Injured Witness: Medical Evidence Did Not Support Narrative of Brutal Assault

The testimony of P.W.3 Arvind, the injured child witness, was also tested against medical evidence. He claimed to have been assaulted by 7–8 persons with butts of firearms and axes and to have remained admitted in hospital for twenty days.

However, the injury report indicated limited injuries, some of which could be caused by blunt objects such as lathi or danda. Crucially, no documentary proof of twenty days’ hospitalization was produced. The High Court observed that there was neither any hospital admission record nor convincing explanation for the delay in recording his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

The Court found it improbable that persons who allegedly committed a brutal massacre of five family members would leave the child alive after only limited injuries. The medical findings did not match the magnitude of violence described.

Firearm Injuries and Recovery: Lack of Forensic Correlation

The prosecution alleged heavy firing — 25 to 30 rounds — and recovery of multiple empty cartridges. However, the High Court noted that the prosecution failed to conclusively connect recovered cartridges and firearms to the crime through reliable forensic linkage.

Further, although it was claimed that the deceased Sarju was warming himself by a fire when shot, no convincing physical evidence of such fire was found at the spot.

The Bench, referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 4 SCC 208, reiterated that where ocular evidence inspires confidence, non-examination of ballistic experts may not be fatal. However, “if the evidence tendered including that of eyewitnesses does not inspire confidence or suffers from glaring inconsistencies,” such omissions assume significance.

Ocular Evidence Must Inspire Confidence

Relying on Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala (2022) 18 SCC 683, the Court reiterated that ocular evidence is generally the best evidence and prevails unless there is a “gross contradiction” with medical evidence that renders it improbable.

In the present case, the High Court found that the inconsistencies were not minor embellishments but went to the root of the prosecution story. The cumulative effect of contradictions regarding the nature of weapons, absence of expected injuries, lack of medical corroboration, and doubtful conduct of witnesses created reasonable doubt.

The Bench emphasized that while minor discrepancies are natural, contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside.

Trial Court’s Approach Found Unsustainable

The High Court observed that the Trial Court failed to adequately consider the impact of medical inconsistencies and instead proceeded on assumptions. It held that findings were recorded without properly reconciling oral testimony with medical reports.

The Bench cautioned that in cases involving multiple murders and large unlawful assemblies under Section 149 IPC, courts must exercise heightened scrutiny, especially when the case rests primarily on related witnesses.

Benefit of Doubt Extended

Applying the principle laid down in Digamber Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh that where two views are possible the one favouring the accused must be adopted, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The cumulative inconsistencies between medical and ocular evidence, according to the Bench, struck at the very foundation of the prosecution case.

Allowing all connected appeals, the Allahabad High Court set aside the judgment of conviction dated 18 December 2004 and acquitted the appellants. The Court directed that they be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

The ruling reinforces a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence: while ocular evidence holds primacy, it must withstand the test of medical and forensic scrutiny. Where medical findings render the prosecution’s version improbable, courts cannot sustain conviction on doubtful testimony, however grave the offence.

Date of Decision: 27 February 2026