Read Time: 16 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said where there are contradictions inter se between the opinion of the Medical Jurist and the ocular testimony, generally, the evidence of the eyewitnesses should be given precedence. 

However, where the contradiction is so prominent that it completely demolishes the version of the eyewitnesses who are interested and partisan, in such cases, the court should be circumspect in admitting the evidence of the eyewitness while ignoring the convincing opinion of the Medical Expert, a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Sandeep Mehta said.

The court explained the legal position while acquitting a Police Inspector, Vinod Jaswantray Vyas and his co-accused, Superintendent of Police Chinubhai Govindbhai Patel in a case related to custodial death of a bootlegger, Jeeva after his surrender in police station, in an attempt to murder case in June 1992.

The trial court in Ahmedabad convicted both the accused police officers to the charges of murder and sentenced them to life imprisonment in 1997. On appeal, the Gujarat High Court, however, toned down their conviction from Section 302 IPC to offence under Section 304 Part I IPC and modified their sentence, while affirming their guilt with regard to subjecting the deceased to physical violence during the custody.

The accused number two had died during the pendency of appeal before the High Court but his legal heirs pursued the matter due to impact of conviction of pension and retirement benefits.

However before the apex court, only accused number one filed the appeal. However, he too died during the pendency of the matter. His legal heirs continued the appeal.

In the case, the accused had come to police station to surrender with his advocate and two sisters, who were relied upon by the prosecution. They filed a complaint before a court about the custodial torture leading to death of their brother.

Examining the evidence of star witnesses, two sisters, the court noted it is evident that Jeeva (deceased) was having long standing criminal antecedents and there were allegations of bootlegging against him. He had also been detained under the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985. Likewise, their evidence also revealed that Anna Dorai, a co accused who also surrendered along with the deceased, had similar criminal antecedents. However, as per these prosecution witnesses, Jeeva (deceased) was singled out for the custodial torture whereas even a finger was not laid on Anna Dorai by the accused officers. 

"This creates a doubt in the mind of the court on the truthfulness of the allegations set out in the evidence of the two sisters," the bench said.

Having discussed the effect of unnatural conduct on the credibility and evidentiary value of testimony of a witness through a series of judicial pronouncements over time, the court said the two so-called eyewitnesses were having sufficient contact with the legal system and were well aware of the legal machinery and would be knowing the importance of filing a complaint promptly. 

Nothing prevented these ladies from immediately approaching the higher officials or the concerned Court to make a complaint of the alleged assault made on their victim brother in the Amraiwadi Police Station by the police officials, it said, noting accused officers contended there was a delay of 20 days in filing the complaint.

An advocate, who was present at the time of surrender, was a vital witness to unfold the truth of the case. However, he was not examined in evidence for reasons best known to the prosecution, the court said.

"The pertinent omission (by sisters) in failing to inform their advocate about the custodial torture allegedly meted out to Jeeva gives rise to a strong assumption about the unnatural conduct of these eyewitnesses, casting a doubt on the truthfulness of their version and discredits their testimony," the bench said.

The bench, thus, concluded, "We are convinced that they are not witnesses of sterling worth and their evidence is not fit to be relied upon".

In the case, the court noted since Jeeva (deceased) expired around 36 hours after his surrender before the officials of the Amraiwadi Police Station and thus, the medical evidence assumed great significance in the case. 

In light of the evidence of the Medical Jurist, who conducted the autopsy upon Jeeva’s dead body, the bench said, "We are of the opinion that, if at all, the victim had already been subjected to the injuries noted in the postmortem report, he would be having a severe expression of pain and it would have been impossible for him to climb up the flights of stairs (when he was presented before the DCP)". 

Furthermore, on being presented before the Magistrate, the expression of pain on the face of the victim, would be prominently visible and could not have escaped being noticed, the court added. 

The court also noted the medical expert has categorically opined in his examination in chief that the injuries caused to the deceased were fresh and must have occurred within six to eight hours of the death. 

"Thus, there is formidable evidence of the Medical Jurist which totally discredits the version of the so called eyewitnesses (two sisters and another one) that Jeeva (deceased) was inflicted the injuries leading to his death while being in police custody at the Amraiwadi Police Station. Their evidence is contradicted in material particulars by the medical evidence and other attending circumstances," the bench said.

The court cited 'Bhajan Singh alias Harbhajan Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana' (2011), in which the Supreme Court had said where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.

In the instant case, the court also referred to the testimony of another witness, who said at the time of inquest, he had seen the victim’s clothes thoroughly and there was red dust over the said clothes. He also stated to have seen Sabarmati Central jail from inside and deposed that soil of the jail is red.

The accused officers had contended before the court the possibility of Jeeva (deceased) having been assaulted by co-prisoners in the prison cannot be ruled out and is rather more probabilised as injuries were fresh and his body was smeared with red soil, which is typical to the Sabarmati Central Jail.

The court also said, "We feel that since the victim was brought dead from the Sabarmati Central jail, it was imperative upon the Investigating Agency to have made extensive investigation from the prison authorities so as to rule out the possibility of injuries having been caused, while the victim was lodged in the prison." 

"We are also of the view that if at all, Jeeva (deceased) was having the large number of injuries as noted in the postmortem report, the prison authorities would definitely have made a note thereof in the jail records at the time of his admission in the jail premises and the observations made at that time would be crucial for arriving at the truth of the matter," the bench added.

Finding the motive as not palpable in the case, the court said merely because Jeeva (deceased) was having prior criminal antecedents, that by itself, could not have provided motive to the accused police officials to have singled him out for custodial torture while totally sparing the co-accused Anna Dorai. 

The court, therefore, held that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of both the accused persons i.e. Vinod Jaswantray Vyas and Chinubhai Govindbhai Patel (both since deceased) by leading cogent, convincing and reliable evidence and their conviction as recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

As a result, the court set aside and quashed the judgements of the High Court and the trial court and acquitted two police officers in the case.