1998 INSC 0528
                                                     Adya Singh

                                                           Vs

                                                    State of Bihar

                                        Criminal Appeal No. 203 of 1988

                                       (G. T. Nanavati, S. P. Kurdukar JJ)

                                                      29.07.1998

                                                     JUDGMENT

1. The appellant is challenging in this appeal his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34
IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 recorded by the Sessions Court, Patna in Sessions Case
No. 86 of 1976 and confirmed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1976.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence of eyewitnesses who have said
that the deceased was hit on his back by the shot fired by the appellant. But PW 5, Doctor Kalwar,
who had performed post-mortem examination has deposed that entry wound was on the chest and
the exit wound was on the back. Learned counsel submitted that the medical evidence clearly
establishes that the assailant had fired a shot when the deceased was facing him and not when his
back was towards the assailant, as deposed by the eyewitnesses. He submitted that in view of this
inconsistency, the courts below ought not to have accepted their evidence.

3. This aspect was considered by the trial court and also by the High Court and they have rightly
rejected the contention. The doctor, who performed the post-mortem examination, has admitted that
he had prepared the post-mortem report subsequently in his office on the basis of notes which he
had prepared earlier and which were destroyed thereafter. He also admitted that the appellant was
working as a compounder in a government hospital. That explains the reason why there is an
inconsistency in the evidence of Dr. Kalwar and of Dr. Singh, who first examined deceased
Mahinder Singh. PW 6, Dr. Singh, not only in his evidence but also in the injury certificate which
he had issued soon after examining Mahinder Singh has described the wound on the back as an
entry wound and the wound on the chest as the exit wound. Nothing was elicited in his cross-
examination which could create a doubt regarding the correctness of his evidence. An attempt by the
doctor who had performed post-mortem examination to help the appellant is quite evident. This
cannot be regarded as a case in which because of inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the
medical evidence, the evidence of eyewitnesses should have been rejected.

4. We see no reason to differ from the findings recorded by the High Court. The evidence of the
eyewitnesses clearly establishes that the appellant had caused the death of Mahinder Singh by firing
a gun.

5. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant's bail is cancelled and he is ordered to
surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.