As he heard a criminal conviction appeal and acquitted Ravinder Singh of attempted murder Judge Vinod Chatterji Koul observed,

“..The medical evidence presented by the prosecution has great corroborative value because it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged. The non-examination of the doctor who issued the certificate of injury certainly causes prejudice to the appellant/accused. Thus, non-appearance of the doctor to confirm the report/evidence was fatal to the case. If we test the prosecution’s case against the testimony of the above-mentioned witnesses, the impugned judgment is not based on reason or logic. »

The case stems from an incident in 2003, when Chandu Ram was allegedly ambushed by the appellant Ravinder Singh and his brother Hari Singh. According to the prosecution, Ravinder Singh attacked the victim with a sword, inflicting serious injuries on his left shoulder and back. Hari Singh, brandishing a lathi, fled the scene without taking part in the attack.

The victim was rescued by nearby villagers and a police case was registered, leading to the conviction of Ravinder Singh by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, under Sections 324, 325 of the RPC and Section 4/ 25 of the Weapons Act. Hari Singh was acquitted.

Aggrieved by his conviction, Singh argued that the trial court’s decision relied largely on hostile witnesses and lacked forensic support. He contended that the trial court had not given a fair opportunity to the accused to explain all the incriminating circumstances under Section 342 of the CrPC.

He further highlighted the absence of the doctor who issued the injury certificate, arguing that this undermined the prosecution’s case.

On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the victim’s testimony, corroborated by the recovery of the weapon, was sufficient to support the conviction. Despite inconsistencies, she argued that the totality of the evidence conclusively indicated the defendant’s guilt.

Court observations:

In ruling on the case, Judge Koul began by reiterating the principle that appeals courts must carefully re-evaluate evidence, particularly in cases involving convictions. The court referred Lal Mandi v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1995 SC 2254)emphasizing that an appellate court has a duty to independently evaluate the evidence and cannot simply defer to the trial court’s findings if inconsistencies are apparent.

Central to the judgment was the role of medical evidence, with the court emphasizing that medical testimony is not secondary but independent evidence that can establish facts beyond what eyewitnesses can testify.

Judge Koul criticized the prosecution for failing to present the doctor who issued the injury certificate, pointing out that this deprived the defense of the opportunity to cross-examine the doctor and weakened the prosecution’s case. He said this omission caused significant prejudice to the accused and undermined the integrity of the trial.

In addition, the court found the use of hostile witnesses problematic. Judge Koul acknowledged that even if portions of hostile testimony could be admitted, the testimony in this case was inconsistent and lacked consistency. Since the witnesses provided conflicting statements during cross-examination, the court observed that convicting an accused based on such fragmented testimony without substantial corroboration is legally untenable.

“In a criminal trial, suspicions, however strong they may be, cannot and should not be used as evidence. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large and separates vague conjectures from certain conclusions… The court must ensure that a miscarriage of justice is avoided and that the facts and circumstances of a case require it, then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, insignificant or merely probable doubt, but a legitimate doubt based on reason and common sense, the court noted.

Another crucial aspect was the absence of forensic evidence. Judge Koul noted that failure to subject the weapon to forensic examination was a major error, because without evidence linking the weapon to the injuries, the prosecution’s narrative lacked the necessary evidence, he said. -he declared.

The court also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in the case State v. Laly (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1424), emphasizing that while direct eyewitness testimony might suffice, corroborating forensic evidence is essential in cases where the credibility of the witness is in question.

In line with these submissions, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thereby allowing the appeal and thereby acquitting the accused.

Case Title: Ravinder Singh v. State of J&K

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Click here to read/download the judgment