Introduction:

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has upheld a murder conviction, emphasizing the primacy of ocular evidence over conflicting expert opinions. The case involves the conviction of three appellants for offenses under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, stemming from a 1993 incident where they allegedly formed an unlawful assembly, armed themselves with deadly weapons, and assaulted a family with a chopper, resulting in a custodial death. Despite challenges to the conviction based on divergent medical opinions, the court, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, reaffirmed the importance of eyewitness accounts.

Arguments of Both Sides:

The accused contended that the conviction should be set aside due to conflicting expert opinions provided by a doctor, suggesting the possibility of different weapons being used in causing injuries. The defense argued that this discrepancy discredited the ocular evidence presented by eyewitnesses. However, the court rejected this contention, asserting that the doctor’s opinions, based on probability, cannot overshadow the crucial eyewitness testimony.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, setting aside the concurrent findings of the High Court and Trial Court, underscored the significance of ocular evidence in establishing guilt. The court ruled that when the eyewitness testimony is compelling enough to prove the accused’s culpability, conflicting expert opinions do not warrant setting aside the conviction. In this case, the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses, the deceased’s wife and daughter, was deemed sufficient to establish the use of a chopper as the weapon of the crime.