In CRA-AD-7-2020-PUNJ HC- If ocular account is false or prevaricated, then ocular account does lose its creditworthiness and medical account assumes paramount evidentiary worth: P&H HC
Justices Sureshwar Thakur & Kuldeep Tiwari [21-11-2022]

Read Order: TRILOK CHAND SHARMA V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, December 2, 2022: While dealing with an appeal filed by the aggrieved-victim against the verdict of acquittal made by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has held that normally in case of contradiction inter-se ocular account and medical account, the ocular account rendered in respect of the relevant crime does assume preponderance. 

However, the Bench of Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Kuldeep Tiwari held, “... if the ocular account rendered qua the prosecution case is provenly false or is prevaricated, then the ocular account does loose its creditworthiness, and medical account assumes paramount evidentiary worth.”

Essentially, one Trilok, after getting bullet shot injuries was admitted in General Hospital, Gurugram. It was his brother’s testimony that the injured-Trilok had lent a certain sum of money to one Sagar who was refusing to return it. Later, in order to recover the said amount, the complainant along with his brother-Trilok and Sagar were advancing towards an ATM, when the complainant heard a gun-shot sound. Upon looking back, he found Sagar with a pistol (who ran away from the spot with the injured person’s scooty) and his brother-Trilok was shot.

From the spot, a country-made pistol and bullet used in the commission of offence were taken into police possession. During investigation, the accused was arrested and he made a disclosure statement leading to the recovery of the snatched scooty. Case property was deposited in FSL Madhuban. After completion of the investigation, the present police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., was filed. 

The prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and, subsequently, the public prosecutor closed prosecution evidence. After the closure of the prosecution case, the trial Judge drew proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C., whereins, the accused pleaded innocence, and claimed false implication. However, he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that though, normally in case of contradiction inter-se ocular account and medical account qua rather, the ocular account rendered in respect of the relevant crime does assume preponderance. However, the Court added that if the ocular account rendered qua the prosecution case is proven false or is prevaricated, then the ocular account does lose its creditworthiness, and medical account assumes paramount evidentiary worth. 

It was further held that if the recover(ies) were not made in pursuance to a provenly signatured disclosure statement recorded by the accused, before the investigating officer concerned, but were made from the crime site, which was but an open/un-secluded place, thereupon, the recoveries do not comprise any valid potent link in the chain of circumstances. 

For the reasons assigned hereinabove, the instant appeal was dismissed.