Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

In the matter of Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court (SC) has emphasized upon the crucial significance of eyewitness testimonies in legal proceedings involving criminal cases.

Background

• The case arises from the facts that the deceased was killed with the knife blows.
• A FIR was filed by the brother of the deceased stating that the offence was committed by the appellant (accused) and two other individuals.
• The autopsy surgeon found that the death was caused by shock and hemorrhage due to stab injuries.
• He also identified that there were eight injuries on the body of the deceased, which in his opinion were ante­mortem.
• The medical evidence also stated that the death could not have been caused by the knife recovered.
• The prosecution case was primarily founded on evidence of a distant relative of the deceased, who was presented by the prosecution as eyewitness.
• Whereas it was argued on behalf of the appellant that there were substantial inconsistencies and contradictions in the witnesses statements and the eyewitnesses herself as she was not a neutral person.
• The accused was acquitted by the Trial Court as the Court found contradictions in the prosecution version as regards the manner in which the knife blows were inflicted and the identification of the assault weapon.
• Thereafter, on appeal to the Gujarat High Court (HC), accused was convicted under the offences Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• Hence a criminal appeal was filed in the SC.

Court’s Observations

• The Court relied on earlier SC verdicts given in the case Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) and Anvaruddin v. Shakoor (1990) which emphasized the importance of ocular evidence over the opinion of medical experts. The ruling highlighted that eyewitness testimony, even if not exhaustive in every detail, carries significant importance in establishing the chronological order of events.
• Justices Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi while hearing an appeal against the judgment of Gujarat HC, overturned the acquittal by the trial court.
  • The Bench stated that “Just because there were more injuries than the ones narrated by the eyewitness cannot negate the prosecution's version. In our opinion the discrepancies pointed out by the appellant are minor ones. An eyewitness to a gruesome killing cannot in deposition narrate a blow-by-blow account of the knife strikes inflicted on the deceased like in a screenplay".
• The SC also pointed out that the trial court had placed undue emphasis on relatively minor contradictions in witness statements while ignoring the overall testimony of prosecution witnesses.

Legal Provisions

Indian Penal Code, 1860

The FIR pertains to Sections 302 and 114 of IPC which are described below:

Section 114 - Abettor present when offence is committed — Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence.

Section 302 - Punishment for murder — Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Indian Evidence Act mentions about Evidence of Expert under Section 45.

Section 45 - Opinions of experts – When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.

• The IEA gives due importance to the opinion of an expert, whereas the opinion of an ordinary person is of no value.
• The evidence of expert is not conclusive and how much reliance is to be placed on such evidence or how much weightage is to be given to it is the domain to the court concerned.

Case Law

• Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal (2012): It was held by SC that the primary purpose of expert opinion is to aid the court in reaching a final verdict although such an opinion is not binding upon the court.
• Pruthiviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala (2014) the SC bench of Justices Navin Sinha and R. Subhash Reddy has held that Ocular evidence is considered the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it.
• Himanshu Mohan Rai v. State of U.P (2017): The SC held that where the ocular testimony provides that accused shot and killed the deceased was reliable the opinion of the ballistic expert cannot discredit that.