Summary
Convictions arising from an alleged fatal police-custody assault were set aside because the eyewitness accounts were unreliable and contradicted by compelling medical evidence. The Court found material omissions in the investigation, including failure to examine the possibility of injuries in subsequent prison custody. Although only one deceased officer’s heirs pursued the appeal, both deceased accused were acquitted.
Issues
- Whether the eyewitness accounts established that the fatal injuries were inflicted by the accused officers in police custody.
- When medical evidence can justify rejecting ocular testimony.
- Whether merely exhibiting an expert’s letter proved its contents.
- Whether the non-appealing co-accused should receive the same benefit.
Provisions considered
- Section 394, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The appellant’s legal heirs had been permitted to continue the appeal after his death because acquittal could affect service benefits; the merits were accordingly adjudicated. (¶ 5)
Held
- Witness reactions cannot be judged by an inflexible standard of uniform human behaviour. Nevertheless, conduct that remains wholly unnatural after allowing for individual variations can undermine credibility. Here the sisters’ account, delayed resort to legal remedies despite access to counsel, and other inconsistencies rendered their evidence unreliable; the third alleged eyewitness also had serious contradictions and omissions. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33)
- Merely marking an expert’s letter as an exhibit does not establish the truth of its contents. The second medical expert did not explain his opinion in testimony and accepted that the doctor who conducted the autopsy was better placed to estimate injury age. His letter therefore did not displace the autopsy evidence. (¶¶ 36, 37, 38, 39)
- Ocular testimony generally carries greater evidentiary value than medical opinion. Where compelling medical evidence entirely rules out the eyewitness version, however, the court may reject that version; the medical contradiction must be assessed with the reliability of the witnesses and attending circumstances. (¶¶ 43, 44, 45)
- The autopsy doctor’s uncontroverted opinion placed the injuries within six to eight hours of death and explained that a person with those injuries could not climb stairs without support. Evidence that the deceased had climbed several flights before production in court materially contradicted the alleged earlier infliction of fatal injuries at the police station. (¶¶ 19, 34, 35, 40, 41, 42, 43)
- The possibility of assault during subsequent prison custody was more probable on the medical record and should have been investigated. Prison admission records and enquiries from prison authorities were crucial missing material. The prosecution had not proved the accused officers’ guilt through cogent, reliable evidence. (¶¶ 46, 47, 48, 49, 50)
- The appellant was entitled to acquittal. The same conclusions benefited the deceased co-accused despite absence of an appeal on his behalf. Both trial court and High Court judgments were quashed and both accused acquitted. (¶¶ 51, 52, 53)
Result
Appeal allowed; trial court and High Court judgments quashed and both deceased accused acquitted, including the non-appealing co-accused.