Credible Eyewitness Account Be Given Precedence Over Medical Account In Case Of Any Contradiction: P&H HC
Credible Eyewitness Account Given Precedence Over Medical Evidence in Case of Contradiction: Punjab & Haryana High Court
1. Introduction
In criminal trials, evidence may come from various sources such as eyewitness testimony and medical reports. Occasionally, contradictions arise between eyewitness accounts and medical evidence regarding the nature or timing of injuries or events.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that when such contradictions occur, a credible and reliable eyewitness testimony can be preferred over the medical evidence, particularly because medical evidence may be open to interpretation and may not always capture the full circumstances.
2. Legal Reasoning
Eyewitness testimony is the direct account of a person who witnessed the event and can narrate the circumstances in detail.
Medical evidence, while scientific, primarily establishes facts like nature, extent, and timing of injuries but may not explain the context fully.
Medical reports are objective but may lack clarity on the sequence of events or intention.
Eyewitness testimony, when consistent, cogent, and trustworthy, can clarify contradictions or fill gaps in medical evidence.
Courts must evaluate credibility, consistency, and reliability of witnesses.
When conflicts arise, the court must decide which evidence better explains the incident logically.
3. Punjab & Haryana High Court’s Observations
The P&H HC stated that medical evidence is supportive in nature and does not automatically override eyewitness evidence.
Eyewitness testimony is often given paramount importance if found to be trustworthy, reliable, and consistent.
Minor contradictions in medical reports do not diminish the probative value of credible eyewitness accounts.
Courts should be cautious before discarding eyewitness evidence solely on the basis of minor discrepancies with medical evidence.
4. Relevant Case Laws
a) State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996), Supreme Court
Though a Supreme Court case, it is frequently cited by P&H HC.
The Court held that when there is a clear and trustworthy eyewitness account, it can be relied upon even if there is some contradiction with medical evidence.
Eyewitnesses can provide detailed facts that medical reports cannot cover.
b) Nihal Singh v. State of Punjab (2001), P&H HC
The Court emphasized that medical evidence is corroborative.
Credible eyewitness testimony describing the incident in detail can be preferred.
Minor contradictions between medical evidence and eyewitness accounts do not create reasonable doubt.
c) Kishan v. State of Haryana (2010), P&H HC
The Court held that the testimony of unimpeachable eyewitnesses holds more weight than medical evidence which only reflects injury and not the circumstances.
Eyewitnesses can explain the nature and cause of injury better than medical reports.
d) State of Haryana v. Raj Kumar (2014), P&H HC
The Court reiterated that medical evidence must be read harmoniously with eyewitness testimony.
If conflict arises, the credibility and consistency of eyewitness testimony is decisive.
5. Reasons Why Eyewitness Testimony Can Prevail
| Factor | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Direct observation | Eyewitnesses observe actual events and circumstances |
| Detailed narrative | Can explain context, intention, and sequence of events |
| Medical evidence limitations | Primarily establishes facts like injury; not context or intent |
| Credibility assessment | Consistency, demeanor, and reliability of witnesses matter |
| Court’s role | To weigh all evidence and find the most plausible version |
6. Summary
| Aspect | Position of P&H HC |
|---|---|
| Role of medical evidence | Corroborative and supportive |
| Eyewitness testimony | Paramount if credible and consistent |
| Contradictions | Minor contradictions with medical reports do not invalidate eyewitness account |
| Judicial approach | Harmonious reading; preference to reliable eyewitness evidence |
7. Conclusion
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recognizes the primacy of credible eyewitness testimony in cases of contradiction with medical evidence. This approach ensures that justice is based not just on clinical facts but also on truthful human observation of the incident, leading to a fuller and fairer understanding of the case.
RELATED Blog
0 comments