Ocular Evidence Prevails Over Medical Opinion Unless Unreliable: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on October 7, 2025, held that in cases where ocular testimony and medical evidence are at variance, it is the ocular evidence that must prevail unless found to be wholly unreliable.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta dismissed appeals filed by Chikkegowda and others challenging a 2014 Karnataka High Court judgment that convicted seven persons and upheld the acquittal of eight others in the murder of Mohan Kumar and assault on his wife, Annapurna, on March 16, 2003. The Court said it found no error in the High Court’s decision warranting interference.

The bench rejected the appellants contention that the High Court had failed to explicitly record that the trial court’s view of acquittal was not a “probable view,” observing that the High Court had meticulously examined the trial court’s findings and “short of expressly stating that they were absurd,” found grave error in its reasoning. The Court held that even if the High Court had not written a specific line using the phrase “not a probable view,” its judgment could not be faulted on that ground.

According to the prosecution, the deceased, Mohan Kumar, was attacked around 6:00 a.m. by a group of sixteen persons who obstructed him on his way to the dairy and assaulted him with dangerous weapons, causing fifteen injuries as noted in the post-mortem report. When his wife, Annapurna, intervened to save him, she too sustained grievous injuries. The post-mortem was conducted between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. the same day by Dr. K.K. Hebbar, who recorded that death could have occurred 10 to 12 hours prior. The Court noted that this timing, counted backwards, corresponded with the account of the incident occurring around 5:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., as stated by the injured eyewitness.

The trial court, however, had acquitted all fifteen surviving accused, relying primarily on a portion of Dr. Hebbar’s cross-examination where he said death could have occurred between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m., and on a defence theory alleging an illicit relationship between the injured wife and another witness, suggesting they had conspired to kill the deceased. The High Court reversed the acquittal of seven accused after finding the trial court’s reasoning to be perverse and contrary to settled law.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s conclusion that medical opinion could not override consistent and reliable eyewitness testimony. It reiterated that time of death in an autopsy is always a probable estimate and cannot be determined with absolute precision. The bench referred to Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab (2012), State of U.P. v. Hari Chand (2009), and Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol v. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala (2022), reaffirming that ocular evidence carries greater weight unless irreconcilable with medical findings.

The Court noted that Annapurna, the injured eyewitness, had been consistent in her version from her first statement to the police, which formed the basis of the FIR, through her testimony at trial. Her account was corroborated by medical evidence and by other eyewitnesses whose statements withstood cross-examination. The Court observed that her injuries were never challenged by the defence, nor was it alleged that they were self-inflicted. It said the trial court’s disbelieving of her testimony was “purely conjectural and unsustainable in law.”

The bench also rejected the defence claim that the injured wife had an illicit relationship with another man, finding the argument baseless. It noted that the alleged divorce of that man from his wife had occurred in 1995, whereas Annapurna’s marriage with the deceased took place in 1996-97, ruling out any connection. The Court said the trial court should have “condemned the conduct of the defence in unnecessarily casting aspersions upon the injured wife.”

The judgment recounted that Annapurna had vividly described the assault, naming each assailant and detailing their roles. Her version, supported by medical reports and corroborative evidence, was found credible by both the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court said the High Court had taken a balanced and reasoned approach, upholding acquittal for eight accused while convicting seven based on clear and cogent evidence. It noted that the High Court had also acquitted the convicted accused of charges of outraging modesty and attempt to murder, limiting their conviction to offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 324, and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

Finding that the High Court’s appreciation of evidence was thorough and free of perversity, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the conviction of the seven accused was justified. It directed that the appellants who are in custody shall continue to serve the remainder of their life sentences as per law.

Case Title: Sri Chikkegowda & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors

Bench: Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta

Date of Judgment: October 7, 2025