2021 INSC 0322
NON­REPORTABLE
  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 177 OF 2014
PRUTHIVIRAJ JAYANTIBHAI VANOL         ...APPELLANT(S)
Vs.
DINESH DAYABHAI VALA AND OTHERS      ...RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAVIN SINHA, J.
This appeal arises from an order of acquittal, reversing the
conviction of respondents 1 to 4 under  Sections 302, 34, 120B
of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   (IPC)   sentencing   them   to   life
imprisonment   and   fifteen   days   imprisonment   under   Section
135(1) of the Bombay Police Act.
2. The   deceased   was   assaulted   on   01.10.2003   at   2:30   am
while   he   was   returning   on   a   motorcycle   along   with   PW­2   who
was   the   pillion   rider.     The   respondents   are   said   to   have
assaulted with iron pipe, steel rod and stick, causing three stab
wounds and nine incised wounds.  The acquittal is premised on
1

the   reasoning   that  the   evidence   of  the  eye­witnesses   PW­2  and
PW­10, is inconsistent with the medical evidence, regarding the
nature of injuries vis­à­vis   the weapons of offence.
3. Shri   Shikhil   Suri,   the   learned   amicus   curie   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   appellant   submitted   that   the   First   Information
Report was lodged promptly  at  5:15 am  the  same day   by  PW­2
naming   the   four   respondents.     The   deceased,   PW­2,   and   the
four   respondents   were   well   known   to   each   other   from   earlier.
Relations between them had soured,   leading to the occurrence.
PW­12   had   deposed   that   the   respondents   had   threatened   the
deceased earlier also.  The deposition of PW­2 is corroborated by
an   independent   witness,   PW­10   the   security   guard   of   the
bungalow   near   which   the   occurrence   took   place.   There   were
street lights near the place of occurrence. 
4. The deceased was brought to the hospital emergency ward
by   PW­2   at   2:45   am,   with   serious   injuries   and   expired   at   8:00
am, as deposed by the Doctor PW­14.  The witness deposed that
Dr. Vishwamitra, whose signatures he identified, had noted that
the injuries to the deceased were caused by sharp weapons.  
2

5. The   postmortem   report,   as   deposed   by   the   Doctor   PW­1,
revealed three stab wounds and nine incised injuries.  Injuries 1
to   4   which   were   on   the   head,   were   sufficient   to   cause   death.
The   witness   deposed   that   the   iron   rod   used   for   assault   had   a
turned sharp edge which could cause incised injuries.  The stab
wounds were possible by a sharp instrument. 
6. It was submitted that there was no inconsistency between
the   ocular   and   medical   evidence.     The   High   Court   erred   in   the
appreciation of evidence by failing to take not that the iron rod
had   a   sharp   edge   by   which   the   injuries   on   the   deceased   were
possible.     It   is   only   if   the   medical   evidence   was   totally
inconsistent   with   the   ocular   evidence,   the   former   was   to   be
given   precedence.     Reliance   was   placed   on   Solanki
Chimanbhai Ukabhai vs. State of Gujarat,  1983 (2) SCC 174
and   State   of   U.P.   vs.   Krishna   Gopal   and   Another,   1988   (4)
SCC   302   and   Baleshwar   Mahto   vs.   State   of   Bihar,   2017   (3)
SCC 152.
7. Shri   Kanwaljit   Kochar,   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf of the first three respondents, the fourth one absconding
3

till   date,   relying   on   Ramesh   Babulal   Doshi   vs.   State   of
Gujarat, 1996   (9)   SCC   225 ,   Dhanna   vs.   State   of   M.P.   with
Kanhiyalal and another vs. State of M.P. ,   1996(10) SCC 79,
and   Ghurey   Lal   vs.   State   of   Uttar   Pradesh ,   2008(10)   SCC
450, submitted that in an appeal against acquittal if two views
are   possible,   the   benefit   of   doubt   should   be   given   to   the
accused.     It was submitted that stab and incised injuries were
not   possible   by   a   steel   rod   or   iron   pipe.       The   genesis   of   the
occurrence was therefore itself in doubt.   The acquittal by High
Court   therefore   calls   for   no   interference.       The   recovery   of   the
weapons from the place of occurrence is doubtful as the seizure
witnesses,   PW­4   and   PW­5   have   both   turned   hostile.     There   is
no FSL report with regard to the finger prints on the weapons of
assault   to   link   them   with   the   respondents.     The   occurrence   is
stated to have taken place in an open area near a bungalow and
not on the street where street lights may be available.   It was a
dark   night   with   no   moonlight   even.     Identification   of   the
respondents  is therefore doubtful. Disputing  that PW­2 was an
eye   witness   to   the   assault,   it   was   submitted   that   he   had   run
away from the spot.  
4

8. PW­14 did not mention the presence of any stab or incised
injuries   on   the   person   of   the   deceased.     PW­1   acknowledged
that stab or incised injuries could not be caused by an iron rod.
In   view   of   the   variation   between   the   ocular   and   medical
evidence, the High Court rightly opined that the Doctor was in a
confused state of mind.  There was no motive and it was a mere
chance   meeting   of   the   respondents   with   the   deceased.       In
absence   of   any   specific   allegations   with   regard   to   which   of   the
respondents   assaulted   in   what   manner,   and   also   considering
that respondent nos. 1 to 3 have undergone approximately eight
and   half  years   of  custody,  in   the   entirety,  their   conviction  may
be   altered   to   one   under   Section   304   Part   II   IPC,   sentencing
them to the period already undergone.  
9. We   have   considered   the   submissions   on   behalf   of   the
parties and have been taken through the records. 
10. The occurrence took place at 2:30 am.  It is not in dispute
that   PW­2   who   was   accompanying   the   deceased   on   the
motorcycle, took him to the hospital at 2:45 am.   The deceased
was   unconscious   and   in   a   precarious   condition   as   deposed   by
PW­14.  The FIR was lodged barely hours later by PW­2 at 5:15
5

am naming the respondents.  There was no time for the witness
to  consider   and  ponder   for  naming  the accused except to  state
the   truth.     PW­2   deposed   that   the   respondents   stopped   them
near   the   bungalow   of   one   Chimanbhai   Patel.     He   was   pushed
down by Dipak who hit the deceased on his head with the iron
pipe.     Thereafter   all   the   respondents   started   assaulting   the
deceased with iron pipes, sticks and iron rods.   Thereafter, the
witness ran away and returned with his friends.  The credibility
of   PW­2   as   an   eye   witness   has   not   been   doubted   by   the   High
Court. 
11. The   respondents   were   not   strangers,   but   well   known   to
PW­2   and   the   deceased.     PW­12   deposed   that   the   respondents
had   threatened   the   deceased   earlier   also,   and   were   compelling
him   to   withdraw   the   case   and  would  also   demand   money   from
him because of which the deceased had shifted from the locality
where they all they lived earlier. 
12. There   is   evidence   about   the   availability   of   light   near   the
place   of   occurrence.     Even   otherwise,   that   there   may   not   have
been any source of light is hardly considered relevant in view of
the fact that the parties were known to each other from earlier.
6

The criminal jurisprudence developed in this country recognizes
that the eye sight capacity of those who live in rural areas is far
better  than compared to the town folks.   Identification at night
between   known   persons   is   acknowledged   to   be   possible   by
voice,   silhouette,   shadow,   and   gait   also.     Therefore,   we   do   not
find much substance in the submission of the respondents that
identification   was   not   possible   in   the   night   to   give   them   the
benefit of doubt.
13.  In  Nathuni Yadav vs State of Bihar,  (1998) 9 SCC 238, 
with regard to identification in the dark, this court observed:
“9….   Even   assuming   that   there   was   no   moonlight
then,   we   have   to   gauge   the   situation   carefully.   The
proximity   at   which   the   assailants   would   have   con ­
fronted with the injured, the possibility of some light
reaching   there   from   the   glow   of   stars,   and   the   fact
that the murder was committed on a roofless terrace
are germane factors to be borne in mind while judg ­
ing whether the victims could have had enough visi ­
bility   to   correctly   identify   the   assailants.   Over   and
above   those   factors,   we   must   bear   in   mind   the   fur ­
ther fact that the assailants were no strangers to the
inmates   of   the   tragedy­bound   house,   the   eyewit ­
nesses  being   well  acquainted  with   the  physiognomy
of each one of the killers. We are, therefore, not per ­
suaded to assume that it would not have been possi ­
ble for the victims to see the assailants or that there
was   possibility   for   making   a   wrong   identification   of
them. We are keeping in mind the fact that even the
assailants   had   enough   light   to   identify   the   victims
whom   they   targeted   without   any   mistake   from
among those who were sleeping on the terrace. If the
7

light then available, though meagre, was enough for
the   assailants   why   should   we   think   that   the   same
light was not enough for the injured who would cer ­
tainly   have   pointedly   focussed   their   eyes   on   the
faces of the intruders standing in front of them.”
14. PW­10   was   an   independent   witness.   Neither   has   his
presence   been   doubted   nor   his   impartiality   been   suspected.
Sitting at the gate, he saw two persons on a motorcycle passing
through   the   ground.     Four   persons   stopped   them   and   started
beating   the   person   who   was   driving   the   motorcycle   while   the
pillion rider ran away and then returned with four to five people.
The   assailants   had   pipes,   sticks   and   an   iron   rod   with   a   turn.
The assailants ran away throwing the weapons of assault at the
place   of   occurrence.   The   witness   has   corroborated   PW­2   in   all
material particulars. 
15. PW­1,   the   Doctor   who   conducted   the   post­mortem,   found
the following injuries on the person of the deceased:
   “…(vi) 2.5 cm long cut wound on middle of right ear.
(vii)   One   stitched   wound   one   centimeter   below   the
injury No. 5, its size was 8 cm x .25 cm, it was stitched
with black thread.
(viii)   One   cut   wound   going   oblique   from   lip   to   ear,   its
size was 1.5 cm, it was deep upto muscle.
(ix)   One   cut   wound,   2   cm   below   the   right   lip   going
towards   backside   of   ear,   its   size   was   2.5   cm,   it   was
deep upto muscle.
(x)   One   stitched   oblique   wound   on   right   side   of   chin
going towards backside, its size was 3.5 cm x .25 cm,
8

it was stitched with black thread.
(xi) One stabbed wound on right occipital protuberance
(at   middle   of   the   backside   of   skull),   its   size   was   1   cm
x .5 cm, it was deep upto muscles of scalp.
(xii)   One   stabbed   wound   on   right   hand   at   upper   1/3
and  lower  2/3 level, its size  was 2 cm  x  1.5  cm, deep
upto   muscles,   both   the   edges   were   T   square   and
wound margin was sharp.
(xiii) One stabbed wound at 2.5 cm below injury No.2,
its  size  was 2.5 cm  x  1  cm, deep up to  muscles,  both
the   edges   were   T­square   and   wound   margin   was
sharp.
(xiv) Innumerous cut wounds on middle of arm region
of right hand and cutting each other at outside, its size
was 15 cm x 20 cm.
(xv)  One  cut  wound on douser  aspect of right  forearm
(towards  outside),  it  was  starting  from  right   wrist  and
going   upwards,   its   length   was   10   cm   and   was   deep
upto muscles.
(xvi)   One   cut   wound   found   in   the   middle   of   right
forearm,   which   was   oblique   and   upward   on   the
anterior   aspect,   its  size   was   6.6  cm,   it   was   deep   upto
subcutaneous tissue.
(xvii)   One   cut   wound   on   index   finger   of   left   hand,   on
douser aspect near base of second and third finger, its
size was 4.5 cm, it was deep upto muscles.
(xviii) One cut wound on base of left thumb oblique on
palmer   aspect  i.e. on  palm, its  size was 3.5cm, it  was
deep upto muscles.
(xix) One cut wound found on base of left index. finger,
its size was 2.5 cm and was deep upto muscles.”
He   deposed   that   the   iron   rod   used   for   assault,   shown   to   him,
had   a   turn   and   that   injuries   nos.   1   to   4   caused   on   the   head
were possible by it.  In his cross­examinations, he deposed that
the sharp cutting injuries were possible with the iron rod which
had a turn.
9

16. The   recovery   of   the   weapons   of   assault   from   the   place   of
occurrence   stands   established   from   the   evidence   of   PW­4   and
PW­5 who had not denied their signatures on the seizure memo
and   neither   have   they   said   that  they   were   coerced   into  signing
the   seizure   memo.     Cumulatively,   in   view   of   the   nature   of
evidence available, the absence of any FSL report with regard to
finger prints on the seized weapons is considered irrelevant.
17. Ocular   evidence   is   considered   the   best   evidence   unless
there are reasons to doubt it.  The evidence of PW­2 and PW­10
is   unimpeachable.     It   is   only   in   a   case   where   there   is   a   gross
contradiction   between   medical   evidence   and  oral  evidence,  and
the   medical   evidence   makes   the   ocular   testimony   improbable
and   rules   out   all   possibility   of   ocular   evidence   being   true,   the
ocular evidence may be disbelieved.  In the present case, we find
no inconsistency between the ocular and medical evidence.  The
High Court grossly erred in appreciation of evidence by holding
that   muddamal   no.5 was a simple iron rod without noticing the
evidence that it had a sharp turn edge. 
18. The   aforesaid   discussion   leads   us   to   the   conclusion   that
the  acquittal   by  the  High  Court  is based  on  misappreciation  of
10

the   evidence   and   the   overlooking   of   relevant   evidence   thereby
arriving at a wrong conclusion.  It is not a case where two views
are   possible   or   the   credibility   of   the   witnesses   is   in   doubt.
Neither   is   it   a   case   of   a   solitary   uncorroborated   witness.     The
conclusion   of   the   High   Court   is   therefore   held   to   be   perverse
and   irrational.     The   acquittal   is   therefore   held   to   be
unsustainable   and   is   set   aside.     In   the   nature   of   the   assault,
Section   304   Part   II,   IPC   has   no   application.     The   conviction   of
respondent nos. 1 to 4 by the Trial Court is restored.
19. The   respondent   nos.   1   to   3   are   directed   to   surrender
within   two   weeks   to   serve   out   the   remaining   period   of   their
sentence.   The Director General of Police, State of Gujarat shall
take   all   necessary   steps   to   apprehend   the   absconding,   fourth
accused  and  bring   him  to  justice.   A  report  shall   be  submitted
to this Court in this regard within a period of 8 weeks when the
present matter shall be listed for that limited purpose.
20.  The appeal is allowed.
.............................J.
(NAVIN SINHA)
 
…..........................J.
                    (R. SUBHASH REDDY)
NEW DELHI,
July 26, 2021
11