Singh Vs. State of Bihar  INSC 365 (29 July 1998)
Nanavati, S.P. Kurdukar
appellant is challenging in this appeal his conviction under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act recorded by Sessions Court, Patna in Sessions Case No.86 of 1976 and
confirmed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 1976.
counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence of eye-witnesses who
have said that the deceased was hit on his back by the shot fired by the
appellant. But P.W.5 - Doctor Kalwar, who had performed post-mortem examination
has deposed that entry wound was on the chest and the exit wound was on the
back. Learned counsel submitted that the medical evidence clearly establishes
that the assailant had fired a shot when the deceased was facing him and not
when his back was towards the assailant, was deposed by the eye-witnesses. He
submitted that is view of this inconsistency, the courts below ought not to
have accepted their evidence.
aspect was considered by the trial court and also by the High Court and they
have rightly rejected the contention same. The Doctor, who performed the
post-mortem examination, as admitted that he had prepared the post- mortem
report subsequently in his office on the basis of notes which he had prepared
earlier and which were destroyed thereafter. He also admitted that the
appellant was working as a compounder in a Government hospital. That explains
the reason why there is an inconsistency in the evidence of Dr. kalwar and of
Dr. Singh, who first examined deceased Mahinder Singh, P.W. 6- Dr. Singh not
only in his evidence but also in the Injury Certificate which he had issued
soon after examining Mahinder Singh has described the wound on the back as an
entry wound and the wound on the chest as the exit wound. Nothing was elicited
in his cross-examination which could create a doubt regarding the correctness
of his evidence. An attempt by the Doctor who had performed post- mortem
examination to help the appellant is quite evidence.
cannot be regarded as a case in which because of inconsistency between the
ocular evidence and the medical evidence, the evidence of eye-witnesses should
have been rejected.
no reason to differ from the findings recorded by the High Court. The evidence
of eye-witnesses clearly establishes that the appellant had caused the death of
Mahinder Singh by firing a gun.
appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant's bail is cancelled an he is
ordered to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.