If There’s Conflict In Ocular & Medical Testimony, Ocular Evidence Will Prevail Unless Totally Unreliable: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that if there is a conflict in the ocular testimony and the medical testimony/evidence, ocular evidence will prevail unless it is totally unreliable.

The Court reiterated thus in Criminal Appeals preferred against the Judgment of the Karnataka High Court, which partly allowed the Appeals against the Trial Court’s acquittal.

The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “It is well settled that if there is a conflict in the ocular testimony and the medical testimony/evidence, it is the ocular evidence which will prevail unless found to be totally unreliable.”

The Bench said that the time of death can never be defined with accuracy; it can only be given as a probable estimate during autopsy, with a margin of a couple of hours (plus/minus) always being assumed.

Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahale represented the Appellants, while AOR D. L. Chidananda represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

Sixteen (16) accused were put to trial for the charges of unlawful assembly and culpable homicide amounting to murder of one person (deceased) and for the charges of causing grievous hurt and outraging modesty of the injured i.e., the deceased’s wife in the year 2003. During trial, accused no. 10 died and hence, proceeding against him were abated. The trial proceeded against the surviving 15 accused and the Trial Court acquitted all of them.

The State and the injured filed Appeals before the High Court which were clubbed together. The High Court partly allowed the said Appeals, confirmed the acquittal of accused nos. 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of all the charges and convicted accused nos. 1 to 6, and 11 for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), awarding them life sentence. Being aggrieved, the convicted persons approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “Having considered the submissions advanced and having scrutinized the material on record, we are of the firm view that the High Court has not committed any error warranting interference.”

The Court remarked that even if the High Court omitted to write a single line stating that the view taken by the Trial Court could not have been a probable view, it would be unfair and unjust to hold that the Judgment of the High Court could be faulted on this ground.

“From the testimony of PW-1, we do not find that she had faltered in any manner, or that her version in the examination-in-chief, which was fully in line with the First Information Report and her statement under Section 161 CrPC, could be said to have been impeached. During cross-examination, the defence could not elicit anything from PW-1 to render her testimony unreliable or worthy of being discarded. Interestingly, the defense did not put a single question to PW-1 challenging her injuries, the injury report, or even with regard to her alleged illicit relationship with PW-3”, it added.

The Court said that disbelieving and discarding of the testimony by the Trial Court was purely conjectural and unsustainable in law and the High Court has rightly found fault with the said finding of the Trial Court.

Conclusion

The Court further observed, “The Trial Court ought to have condemned the conduct of the defense in unnecessarily casting aspersions upon PW-1. … The prosecution had proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The time and place of the crime were also established, the FIR was promptly lodged and duly communicated to the Magistrate concerned, and the medical evidence supported the prosecution version.”

The Court was of the view that the High Court has taken a balanced view and has minutely scrutinized the evidence and the formal witnesses who proved the recovery, the injuries, the post-mortem, the arrest, and the Investigating Officers have neither turned hostile nor been found unworthy of reliance.

“For all the reasons recorded above, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court convicting the appellants”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals and upheld the impugned Judgment.

Cause Title- Chikkegowda & Ors. v. State of Karnataka Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 121)

Appearance:

Appellants: Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahale, AOR Harisha S.R., Advocates Parikshith Maliye, Anirudh Gupta, and Anuradha Bhat.

Respondents: AOR D. L. Chidananda

Click here to read/download the Judgment