The Andhra Pradesh High Court overturned a conviction under section 304 of the IPC upon finding that the trial court overlooked the 'glaring inconsistencies between the ocular/eyewitness testimony and medical evidence' and held that when dealing with discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, ocular evidence should only be disbelieved when medical evidence rules out the possibility of it being true.
Brief Facts:
In this case, the accused was initially charged under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code but was eventually convicted and sentenced for an offence under Section 304. The prosecution's case hinged on the claim that the accused pushed the victim off a stage and then assaulted him with a stool, allegedly causing severe head injuries leading to the victim's death. However, the victim died eleven days after being discharged from the hospital, with no evident head injuries. Moreover, the attending doctor raised the possibility of natural causes for the death, as the prosecution failed to conclusively prove any injury-related fatality. This criminal appeal challenges the conviction rendered by the Trial Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner's learned counsel questioned the trial court's decision, emphasizing a significant delay in the police report filing. The counsel noted that it took four days after the deceased was admitted to the hospital for a notification to be sent to the police. In addition, the counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was only named as the assailant by the deceased when a constable arrived to take his statement. Further, it was submitted that the prosecution did not demonstrate any external or internal injuries to the cervical canal, which was identified as the cause of death in the autopsy. They stressed that since the deceased was discharged from the hospital in good health, his death should not be attributed to the accused.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent's counsel argued that the conviction of the accused was based on a thorough consideration of all facts and circumstances.
It was submitted that during a music orchestra at the Lord Krishna Temple's Kumabhishekum the accused and the deceased had a dispute over seating arrangements which led to the accused pushing the deceased off the stage and hitting him with a wooden stool, leaving him wedged between chairs.
Observations of the Court:
The bench observed that the deceased's admission under the government's 'Parana Dana Scheme,' which offers free medical care, invalidated the claim of financial hardship. The bench noted that the autopsy identified cervical canal stenosis, a disease in the spinal area, as the cause of death, not injuries inflicted by the accused. He explained that without corresponding injuries in the neck or cervical area, it's unlikely the death was caused by the alleged act of the accused.
The doctor who performed the autopsy emphasized that no internal or external injuries were found on the deceased, as he had been treated prior to discharge. The court also noted the gap of 10 days between the discharge and death of the deceased, suggesting the incidents might be unrelated. The court found it peculiar that the deceased's family didn't file a police complaint immediately, questioning the credibility of their account.
Upon overturning the trial court's conviction, the court emphasized the significant inconsistency between eyewitness testimony and medical evidence. The bench referenced Darbar Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) to highlight that ocular evidence should be doubted only if medical evidence completely contradicts it.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order.
Case Title: A. Kuppaiah vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V. Ravindra Babu
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1481 of 2010
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava
Advocate for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
