2004 (4) TMI 532 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the evidence is reliable or not and to what extent, such lapse affected the object of finding out the truth? Held that - There is no scope for reappraisal of evidence and interference with the concurrent findings of fact. This Court is not ordinarily to go into the credibility of the findings and interference is permissible only when exceptional and special circumstances exist which resulted in injustice to the accused. This is not a case of that nature and the evidence seems to be not only creditworthy but the conclusions arrived at also are well merited and sufficiently supported by overwhelming material on record. We, therefore, find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 302 IPC upheld by High Court, acquittal of co-accused, discrepancy between ocular and medical evidence, plea of alibi, defective investigation, non-examination of eye-witnesses, delayed delivery of judgment.

Conviction Upheld by High Court:
The Supreme Court reviewed the judgment of the High Court which upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The co-accused was acquitted by the High Court. The trial was based on the testimony of eye-witnesses PWs 1 and 2, who were present at the time of the incident. The Court examined the evidence presented during the trial and found that the High Court's decision was based on a proper analysis of the facts and was not erroneous.

Discrepancy Between Ocular and Medical Evidence:
The appellant argued that there was a variance between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence presented during the trial. The defense contended that the time of occurrence as stated by the witnesses was not supported by the medical evidence, particularly regarding the digestion of food in the deceased's stomach. However, the Supreme Court held that hypothetical opinions by textbook writers cannot undermine credible and cogent ocular evidence. The Court emphasized that medical science is not precise in determining the exact time of death based on stomach contents and digestion rates.

Plea of Alibi:
The appellant raised a plea of alibi, claiming he was in jail for identification purposes at the time of the incident. The Court examined this plea and found that no concrete evidence was provided to establish the appellant's presence in jail during the occurrence. The Courts below had correctly rejected the plea of alibi based on the evidence presented during the trial.

Defective Investigation:
The defense argued that the investigation was flawed as the gun used in the crime was not sent for forensic testing. The Supreme Court acknowledged that a defective investigation requires careful evaluation of the evidence. However, mere defects in the investigation do not automatically lead to the acquittal of the accused. The Court emphasized that the reliability of the prosecution evidence must be assessed independently of investigative lapses.

Non-Examination of Eye-Witnesses:
Another contention raised was the non-examination of certain alleged eye-witnesses. The defense claimed that this omission weakened the prosecution's case. However, the investigating officer and witnesses provided reasons for not examining these individuals, and the Trial Court found no merit in the defense's argument. The Supreme Court upheld this finding.

Delayed Delivery of Judgment:
The defense highlighted the delayed delivery of the judgment as a ground for challenging the High Court's decision. The Court clarified that while timely judgments are desirable, the delay in this case did not prejudice the appellant's rights. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that the judgment was based on the merits of the case rather than the timing of its delivery.

Conclusion:
After a detailed analysis of the issues raised, the Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal and upheld the High Court's decision. The Court stressed the importance of credible evidence, the proper evaluation of investigative lapses, and the rejection of unsubstantiated pleas such as alibi. The judgment was based on a thorough examination of the facts and evidence presented during the trial, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.