In CRA-D-474-DB-2013-PUNJ HC- In case of any contradiction inter-se medical and eyewitness account, credible eye witness account is to be assigned preponderance and precedence over medical account: P&H HC 
Justices Sureshwar Thakur & Kuldeep Tiwari [18-01-2023]

Read Order: SUBHASH @ MAKKAR AND OTHERS V. STATE OF HARYANA

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, January 25, 2023:The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the effect of minimal digressions or contradictions inter-se the previously made statements in writing by the ocular witness to the occurrence with his echoings in his testification recorded before the Court, are insignificant, especially when the echoing made by the ocular witness about the presence of accused at the crime site, remains unrebutted and uncontroverted through adduction of cogent evidence.

While dismissing the criminal appeals instituted by the convicts-appellants, against the verdict of conviction for offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC and under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 149 IPC,  the Division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Kuldeep Tiwari observed, “ In case there is any contradiction inter-se the medical account and the eyewitness account, thereupon, the credible eye witness account is to be assigned preponderance and precedence over the medical account”. 

The present FIR was  lodged at the instance of the father of the deceased Satyawan. The informant-complainant Dharampal, made narrations thereins that  he was  a resident of village Pabra. After about three years. Santro, wife of Subhash and his sons filed a civil case in civil Courts against him regarding this land on the ground that he had purchased the said land after administering liquor to Subhash and the said case was decided in his favour.

During the pendency of trial of that case, Subhash and his family members convened a panchayat, so that the said land be returned back to them by him.  Upon this, he agreed that he would return back the said land on payment of sale amount of the land, however  Subhash and his family members did not pay the said amount. It was further alleged that Subhash and his brother Ram Kumar, his wife Santro, his brother in law Baru and Rakesh used to threaten him and his family to return their land otherwise he and his family would be finished. 

About 8-10 days prior to the occurrence, Vicky @ Vikas came on leave from Jail and threatened him with dire consequences if the land was not returned.

Thereafter, he along with his nephew were going towards their fields,  his  son Satyawan was going at a distance of about half killa from them to answer the call of nature and when he reached near Dasuwala Johar, a Tata Sumo crossed them at a very fast speed and hit Satyawan with force on his back in their presence. His son Satyawan then tried to save himself, the Tata Sumo again tried to hit his son and his son again tried to save himself. 

It was also alleged that the complainant and his companion raised alarm and upon hearing the alarm, the accused ran away from the spot after leaving the vehicle and while fleeing they also declared that they have taught them a lesson for not handing over the land and the complainant party will be finished one by one in the same manner. Subsequently, a case under sections 147, 120-B and under Section 302 of IPC got registered. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons. 

After considering the submissions, the Court noted, “in case there is any contradiction inter-se the medical account and the eyewitness account, thereupon, the credible eye witness account is to be assigned preponderance and precedence over the medical account”. 

The Bench opined that even if there is a mere reference in the inquest report about the demise of Satyawan, happening in a road side accident, but even the said echoing is inconsequential, for assigning thereto any exculpatory effect, as credence had already been assigned to the deposition of Dharampal, who is the informant complainant, and, who apart therefrom is also an ocular witness to the occurrence.

It was also observed that  sanctity is to be assigned to the unfoldings as become carried in the site plan. If so, when there are unfoldings therein, that the crime event occurred at a distance of 3 karams from the metal road, therefore, with the above factum becoming not falsified, resultantly, the exculpatory plea, as raised by the convicts, that deceased Satyawan had appeared on the metaled portion of the road, and for obviating the Tata Sumo vehicle hence striking his person, the accused concerned, had made application of brakes thereons, resulting in injuries, as pronounced by defence witness occurring on his person, was but, a completely false plea, the Bench held.

Noting that the  firm inference couldnot be reached that the accused carried the penally inculpable mens rea, the Bench also held that the prosecution had unflinchingly proven the charge drawn against the convicts.

Also,the Bench found that the presence of the Accused Vikas at the relevant site of occurrence never became cogently proven by the prosecution nor in the statement made by complainant he had been alleged to participate in the crime event. Merely by giving threats to the complainant party, he cannot be concluded to be conspiring/participating with the other accused in the crime event, the Bench added.

In light of such observations, the appeal was dismissed.