The Supreme Court ruled that the differences between inquest report and post mortem report, even if such differences are major, will not be fatal to prosecution case and the Inquest report is not substantive evidence.
Vikas Kumar Singh, was going from his house towards Bhandar for performing physical exercise. Based on the fardbeyan of his younger brother, Pankaj Kumar Singh which was recorded at Sadar Hospital, when Vikas Kumar Singh reached in front of the house of Ramadhar Ram, all of a sudden six person who were sitting on the road surrounded him; namely Pappu Tiwari, Sanjay Ram, Uday Pal, Ajay Pal, Pintu Tiwari and Law Tiwari. Pappu Tiwari fired from his pistol at Vikas Kumar Singh as a result of which he got injured and fell down by the side of the road. The other accused are alleged to have been carrying knives and they pounced upon him and inflicted knife blows on his entire body. Hearing the commotion, Pankaj Kumar Singh rushed in the direction. Seeing the said informant and other villagers coming, the accused persons fled towards the path made over the Ahar. They are stated to have also threatened persons present against giving any evidence in the matter. Later on, as per the informant, he claims to have derived knowledge that they fled in a Maruti Van, which belonged to Pintu Tiwari.
The appellant contended that there was hardly any discussion in the appellate court judgment on the particular aspect. The trial court referred to the depositions of the two defence witnesses, Rajendra Yadav and Samsuddin Ansari. Rajendra deposed in his examination-in-chief that he had x-rayed the right knee of Law @ Upendra Tiwari. Samsuddin stated that he knew Law @ Upendra Tiwari and he had come to Garhwa from Silliya Donger by bus. He saw Law Tiwari after falling from a motorcycle who was reeling in pain.
The respondent State contended that neither the advise of Dr. M.P. Singh nor the x-ray having been produced, and Dr. M.P. Singh not having been produced as a defence witness or summoned, there was not a piece of paper evidencing the admission and treatment of Law Tiwari in the hospital which could be produced in support of his plea of alibi.
The division bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice M.M. Sundresh found that there is no discrepancy between the medical and ocular evidence but too much is sought to be made out by the appellant on the doctor not opining about the distance from which the fire arm injury was caused.
The court while dismissing both the appeals held that the story put forth by the prosecution has been established and has not been dented by the appellant accused so as to cast a doubt and entitle them to benefit of doubt.
Case title: Pappu Tiwary v/s State of Jharkhand
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1492 OF 2021