Evidence

Evidence Act, 1872, S.3 -- Inconsistency between evidence of eye witnesses and medical evidence - As per eye witnesses four fire arms shots hit the deceased on head - As per doctor there were only two entry wounds - Court has to go by the statement of doctor as prosecution did not pray that doctor be declared a hostile witness - Evidence of doctor belies evidence of eye witnesses - Acquittal calls for no interference. (Para 12)

According to the two eyewitnesses PW1 and 2, all the four fire arm shots hit the deceased on the head. According to the doctor there were only two entry wounds. This also belies the statement of the so called eyewitnesses according to whom the accused gave four fire arm injuries on the head of the deceased. The doctor was a prosecution witness and the prosecution cannot be heard to say that his statement should not be relied upon. The prosecution did not pray that the doctor be declared a hostile witness. Therefore, we have to go by the statement of the medical expert. (Para 12)

2020(1) Criminal Court Cases 350 (S.C.)