Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
8. We find from the record that PW 12-Lakhan Singh was the first person to reach the place of occurrence when an alarm was raised by the victim. Jn his statement to the police under Section 161, Cr.P.C. it was unambiguously stated in clear terms that when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the accused running away from the spot. It was not mentioned in the FIR or in his statement to the police that he witnessed the accused-appellant injuring the victim. It is only in his deposition before Com1, with variation to his earlier statement before the police, he narrated that he was present at the spot at the time of commission of offence and witnessed the accused showering lathi blows on the deceased. He admittedly made clear that PWs 8 and 9 reached the place of occurrence afterwards.
9. On the other hand, PW 8 in her statement deposed that she saw accused beating the deceased with lat his due to which the deceased had sustained injuries on head, neck and blood was oozing out from BALIRAJ SINGH v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH . [N. V. RAMANA, J.] there and there was sunlight at that time. PW 9 (wife of the deceased) also made the same statement however with some intensity that the · lathis were coated with iron. Veracity of the statements of these two witnesses is doubtful at the threshold itself, as they do not tally with the statement of PW12 who admittedly reached the place of occurrence first.
10. Considering the totality of the prosecution case, we fail to . understand that at the time of such occurrence in a small village, when there was sunlight and PW& & PW9 along with villagers rushed upon hearing uproar of PWl2, no attempt was made by any of the eyewitnesses or villagers to catch hold of the accused. This lacuna in the prosecution case becomes stronger with the fact that in the FIR it was clearly mentioned, as PW& saying to the complainant that upon hearing hue and cry from the field, PW9, PW12 and other people of village rushed to the field. Though there was no indication in the FIR on PW& herself rushing to the scene of offence, it is however apparent that some other people of village rushed to the place of occurrence, but there was none among the villagers who rushed with PWs 8 & 9 as independent eyewitness.
11. Thus, it is true that other than PW12-family friend of th~ deceased, the prosecut'lt>11 has not made any independent witness from the village people who rushed to the place of offence along with PW s 8 & 9 on hearing hue and cry from the field. The circumstances warrant application of due care and caution in appreciating the statements of eyewitnesses because of the fact that the prime eyewitnesses are related inter-se and to the deceased. Hence, the prosecution has failed to put a strong case as we cannot attach credence to the statements of PWs 8, 9 & 12. The courts below erred in not applying the principle of strict scrutiny in assessing the evidences of eyewitnesses (PWs 8, 9 & 12).
12. Further, we find from the postmortem report (Annexure Pl) prepared by Dr. R.K. Dixit (PW 13) upon examining the body of deceased, that there was a punctured wound just below the angle of right mandible over the right side of neck 1" x Y:z'' x 3" and on dissection, he found that major artery.was punctured and trachea was cut. There was hematoma underlying the whole side of neck and in the opinion of Doctor, the injury was caused by a sharp piercing object. Jn his evidence, Doctor (PW 13) confirmed that cause of death was due to excessive hemorrhage form the punctured wound over the right side of neck caused by sharp piercing object and due to punctured major blood vessel, over right side of neck. c c • E [2017) 3 S.C.R.
13. It is on record that at the instance of the accused-appellant, police have recovered (Ext.P7) from arhar field the luthi allegedly used in the offence. However, nowhere it is recorded that the ·seized lathi contained any sharp edges with iron coated. Even it was not sent for examination of Dr. R.K. Dixit (PW 13) to ascertain whether the fatal injury could be resulted by it. Moreover, the record says that the blood on the \Jloodstained cap of deceased (Ext. P9) seized from the place of occurrcnce did not tally with that of the deceased. Another glaring deli~ icncy is that Sub-Inspector who conducted the seizure proceedings and prepared the Ext. P7 (seizure memo) has not been examined by the prosecution. It is settled proposition in criminal jurisprudence that ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborati~e. It proves that the i1tjt1fies could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eyewitnesses.• In this case the nature of injury, contradiction about the time of arrival of the witnesses, contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, non-examination of Police officer who conducted seizure and subsequent improvement by one of the eye witness casts a serious doubt on the prosecution's case.
14. For the foregoing reasons, we cannot hold the accused- appellant guilty of the offence in the present case. The conviction against appellant as recorded by the trial court and upheld by the High Court is therefore set aside and he is acquitted ofthecharges. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other offence.
15. The appeal stands allowed accordingly. Nidhi Jain Appeal allowed.