Ocular evidence

--- Evidence --- Ocular account --- Related eye-witnesses --- Reliability --- Eye-witnesses consistent with each other on all material particulars of the occurrence and whose testimony remains unshaken despite lengthy cross-examination are reliable witnesses --- Where the occurrence took place in broad daylight and the accused being a co-villager was well known to them, the question of mistaken identity does not arise --- Prompt reporting of the incident rules out the possibility of consultation or deliberation --- Related witnesses who have personally witnessed the crime and lost their close relation are not likely to falsely implicate an innocent person while allowing the actual culprit to go scot-free.

--- Ss. 302 & 324 --- Qatl-i-amd and attempt to commit qatl-i-amd --- Ocular and medical evidence --- Motive not proved --- Recovery of weapon doubtful --- Sentencing --- Life imprisonment instead of death penalty --- Scope --- Accused was alleged to have murdered the brother of complainant and injured others within the view of complainant and others --- Motive stated in the FIR was that the accused had previously killed the brother and uncle of complainant, however, the matter was subsequently patched up between the parties --- As per compromise, accused was directed not to come to the town --- From the orders of the Trial Court and the High Court, as well as the depositions of the various witnesses and other factors, it stood proved that the accused killed the victim and injured another --- The ocular and medical evidence supported each other --- As per medical evidence, the victim was admitted to the hospital for six days --- In respect of the deceased, firearm injury No. 1 clearly denoted that it was inflicted on the middle part of the chest, firearm injury No. 2 was an entry wound on the left side of the upper lip, while firearm injury No. 3 denoted an entry wound in the middle part of the right arm --- The medical report also stated that lungs and heart were badly ruptured, and the death occurred due to severe bleeding --- Evidence of motive in the shape of compromise was not produced --- Recovery of weapon was also inconsequential as the report of Forensic Laboratory merely denoted that the gun was in working condition but no evidence connecting it with the commission of offence was produced --- The manner in which the accused was allegedly arrested with the gun also rendered the recovery doubtful --- Recovery of the motorcycle was not properly addressed, as no record relating to its ownership or registration book was ever placed on record --- Case fells within the category warranting life imprisonment rather than the death penalty --- Petitions were dismissed.

--- Ocular evidence --- Presence of eye-witnesses --- Improbability --- Assessment --- The claim of eye-witnesses that they were grazing cattle in fields at 06:00 p.m. in the month of September, the "fag end of the day" is considered highly improbable and contrary to common rural experience, where cattle are typically returned home well before sunset --- Furthermore, a complainant’s presence is doubtful if the record suggests he was informed of the occurrence by others or advised not to approach the scene due to the accused's weapon, as such advice defies logic if the witness had actually been present during the shooting.