JUDGMENT : 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. The incident is of 07.08.1988 which happened near Bhati Choraha Ratanada, Jodhpur at about 10:00 p.m. when it is alleged that the jeep of the complainant party pertaining to Excise Department was attacked by another jeep allegedly consisting of Ramdeen, Gordhan Ram and Babu Lal. There was an allegation that the accused persons assaulted the complainant with Dharias and Lathis. The charge-sheet was filed after investigation against five persons. 3. Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. R.K. Bishnoi and Ms. Laxmi appearing on behalf of appellant submit that though Gordhan Ram was facing the similar allegations but the learned trial court has after due adjudication acquitted him. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in the investigation itself, Deva and Harlal, who were included earlier, were excluded when the charge-sheet was filed. It is also averred that Birbal Ram and Babu Lal, who are the other accused, were charge-sheeted and died before passing of the judgment. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court to the testimony of PW-5, in which, he has deposed that their jeep was attacked and a forceful collusion was caused by the accused persons, who were about 6 to 7 persons and after such collusion having been caused, Mukna Ram along with the others attacked the complainant party with Dharias and Lathis. The deposition includes that Mukna Ram over ran the PW-5 with the jeep and the jeep was run over his neck and he suffered numerous injuries. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has pointed out that there is nothing in the deposition so made, which can render the case of the present accused appellants distinguishable from that of similarly situated person Goverdhan Ram, who was acquitted by the learned trial court itself. 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has further drawn attention of this Court towards the categorical reiteration by the injured witness PW-5 Richpal Singh that he was hit by Dharia by Birbal, Ramdeen and Gordhan as per his previous statement. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has, thereafter, drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of PW-4, who is a Doctor. 7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has, thereafter, drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of PW-4, who is a Doctor. PW-4, in his statement, has deposed about the 19 injures caused of which the grievous injury was the 19th injury. The doctor in his cross-examination has categorically deposed that the injury is probably not caused by running over of the jeep. He has further reiterated that the injury No.19 was not external but had to be treated by the concerned surgeon due to tenderness and pain. The doctor has specifically opined that the wound which has been caused in the present case is a lacerated wound. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that there is a consistency of two issues, which has been primarily deposed by the prosecution witnesses; one is an attacked by Dharia and another running over of the jeep and both the aspects have been seriously contradicted by the doctor, who has been examined as PW-4, as he rules out any injury caused by Dharia and also rules out the jeep having been over run the neck of the injured persons. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the Ex.-5, which is the injury report, in which, all the injures are simple in nature except for certain injuries where there is an advise of x-ray and regarding injury No.19, it is only tenderness over the neck, however, subsequently the same was subjected to surgery and medical treatment. 10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submits that once the Gordhan Ram, who has been consistently named by the PW-5, has been acquitted then the prosecution story and deposition of PW-5 comes into the shadow of doubt. 11. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of PW-3 Mr. R.K. Bhandari, who has deposed that when he went there, a person was lying on road and when being asked then he said that he had been run over by some vehicle. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has cited judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., reported in 2014 6 SCC (Cri) 182; & Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2013 1 SCC (Cri) 1037. 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has cited judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Gangabhavani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., reported in 2014 6 SCC (Cri) 182; & Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2013 1 SCC (Cri) 1037. In both the cases, Hon’ble Supreme Court has dealt with discrepancy and contradictions between the medical and ocular evidence, the relevant paragraphs of judgment : "In Darbara Singh (supra):- 5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the question of inconsistency between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Hari, (2009) 13 SCC 542 ; and Bhajan Singh @ Harbhajan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana, (2011) 7 SCC 421 ). In Gangabhavani (supra):- 7. It is a settled legal proposition that where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless it is reasonably explained may discredit the entire case of the prosecution. However, the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion is required to be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all an opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a particular fact situation. Such an opinion is required to be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all an opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a particular fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts, it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly, if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent or probable, the court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is given by the doctor. “It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses’ account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the ‘variable’ keeping the medical evidence as the ‘constant’ ”. Where the eyewitnesses’ account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. The eyewitnesses’ account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. (Vide: Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727 ; State of Haryana v. Bhagirath, AIR 1999 SC 2005 ; Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 ; and Rakesh v. State of M.P., (2011) 9 SCC 698 ). 8. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence stands crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved." 13. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeals and supported the impugned judgment submitting that the serious injuries is received by Rajpal Singh corroborate the prosecution story, as he had to undergo surgery in cervical and spine area, particularly C-6, which was a grievous injury. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the appeals and supported the impugned judgment submitting that the serious injuries is received by Rajpal Singh corroborate the prosecution story, as he had to undergo surgery in cervical and spine area, particularly C-6, which was a grievous injury. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that Doctor PW-2, who has conducted the surgery, has deposed that if the surgical intervention was not made in time, it could have resulted into paralysis to the patient. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that there was a cervical fracture in C-6 and after proper treatment, the condition of the injured improved, although there was no injury dangerous to his life. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the ocular evidence has to be given precedence and any minor contradiction with the medical evidence cannot be construed as failure on the part of the prosecution. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the name of Mukna Ram has been the principal aggressor and Ramdeen has been the supporting aggressor is clear from the statements of witnesses, as both the accused have been consistently named by the prosecution witnesses and the roles have been attributed to them, although he admitted that the main role was of Mukna Ram and Ramdeen was involved. 16. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that in the present circumstances, the acquittal of Gordhan Ram was on account of the offence having not been proved beyond doubt whereas other persons Birbal Ram and Babu Lal died and thus, the direct evidence against the appellants Mukna Ram and Ramdeen has been rightly dealt with by the learned trial court. 17. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, finds that there is a sentence of five years under Section 307 of IPC, three years in Section 313, two years in Section 332/149 of IPC & six months in Section 147 IPC. The involvement of more than five persons could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt is an apparent factual matrix. The incident has a serious allegations, however, while hearing the matter, this Court finds that PW-2 Dr. Jagdish Chandra has only dealt with the treatment part of the 19th injury and has opined that it could have led to paralysis if it is not treated in time. The incident has a serious allegations, however, while hearing the matter, this Court finds that PW-2 Dr. Jagdish Chandra has only dealt with the treatment part of the 19th injury and has opined that it could have led to paralysis if it is not treated in time. However, he has deposed that it would not have caused death ordinarily and the injury was located at C-6 of the cervical and spine region. However, the doctor has not deposed anything about the situation, in which, the injury would have been caused as per the prosecution case. The empathetical statement has been rendered only by PW-4, who is a doctor, who has deposed regarding all injury reports and has categorically overruled any injury by the incised weapon like Dharia and has rather also opined that the injury could not have been caused by the running over of the jeep over the neck. Thus, the principal question before this Court is that there is grave contradiction between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, if the ocular evidence, which includes the evidence of injured witness, is summarized it categorically speaks of running over of the jeep over the neck of the injured and use of Dharia and lathi by Mukna Ram and Ramdeen. Unfortunately for the prosecution, the Dharia injuries are completely missing and Doctor has categorically opined that there is no incised wound and only the injuries could have been caused by a blunt weapon whereas he has also specifically stated that the injury No.19 could not be caused by the running over of the jeep. 18. In the opinion of this Court, a fundamental defect in the prosecution case has arisen due to such absolute contradiction which almost discredits the story of the prosecution. This Court is aware of the fact that the medical opinion alone cannot be a basis of deciding a case, but again it has to be tested with the objectivity of comparing it with the ocular evidence. This is not a case where different doctors have opined different opinions but there is a straight opinion which is in reverse to the evidence and thus, the consistency of Doctor's opinion creates a huge defect in the prosecution story. This is not a case where different doctors have opined different opinions but there is a straight opinion which is in reverse to the evidence and thus, the consistency of Doctor's opinion creates a huge defect in the prosecution story. Even if the ocular evidence is given precedence then also by any prudent mind, it cannot be accepted that while the whole case hinges upon the weapon of sharp nature Dharia in this case whereas none of the injuries admittedly are of incise nature even going beyond the opinion, the nature of injury itself is causing a serious contradiction and make the ocular testimony quite doubtful. 19. In light of the aforesaid observations, this Court is of the opinion that the learned trial court has erred in reaching at a conclusion of conviction, as the prosecutor story has been cast with a shadow of suspicion due to reverse analogies have been drawn by the medical experts and the ocular evidence. 20. Thus, the present criminal appeals are allowed. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 10.12.1992, passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants are on bail. They need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. 21. All pending applications stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.