Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 569 (ALL)

Balvinder Singh v. State of U. P.

2022-04-18

MANOJ MISRA, SHAMIM AHMED

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, holding brief of Ms. Manju Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A., for the State. 2. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 19.6.1991 passed by VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in Sessions Trial No. 445 of 1990 convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case, as per the first information report (Ex. Ka-1) which has been lodged on oral information provided by the father of the deceased, namely, Harbansh Singh (PW-1), is that deceased Arjun Singh was his younger son. The informant had partitioned his property as per which, his elder son i.e. the accused-appellant Balvinder Singh got equal share as provided to the deceased Arjun Singh, but he was not happy with the share he got and therefore, he bore enmity with the deceased Arjun Singh. It is alleged that on the date of incident i.e. 1.6.1990, at about 8.00 am, the informant (PW-1) went with his daughter Jasveer Kaur (PW-3) to the field where he noticed his help Harphool (not examined) in a petrified state. Immediately thereafter, the informant noticed that the accused-appellant was assaulting the deceased with an axe. It is alleged that as the informant and his daughter raised an alarm, after inflicting several blows on the neck and other parts of the body of the deceased, the accused appellant ran away whereas the deceased fell and died on the spot. 4. The first information report was lodged at 12.15 hours on 1.6.1990 at P.S. Rehad, District Bijnor, which was about 20 km away from the spot, giving rise to Case No.39 of 1990. Upon registration of the first information report, inquest was conducted at the spot by about 15.30 hours. Autopsy of the body was conducted by PW-2 Dr. H.P. Agrawal on 2.6.1990 at about 11.00 a.m. and autopsy report (Ext.Ka.2) describes ante mortem injuries as follows:- (i) Incised wound 25 cm x 15 cm x cavity deep on back of head and neck extending from one ear to another ear. Brain matter is coming out. All the structures underneath injuries are exposed. Second, third cervical vertebrae and occipital bone are cut; (ii) Incised wound 2½ cm x 1 cm x 6 cm on right side face 3 cm below the right ear. Brain matter is coming out. All the structures underneath injuries are exposed. Second, third cervical vertebrae and occipital bone are cut; (ii) Incised wound 2½ cm x 1 cm x 6 cm on right side face 3 cm below the right ear. On exposure, right side mandible cut; (iii) Abrasion 1 cm x ½ cm on back left hand at the base of left middle finger; (iv) Incised wound 4 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on front of right thigh 5 cm above the right knee; (v) Incised wound 6 cm x 2 cm x muscle on antero lateral aspect of left thigh 10 cm above left knee; (vi) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on front of left thigh in middle; (vii) Incised wound 1 cm x ½ cm x muscle deep on lateral aspect of left little toe. Internal examination disclosed stomach empty, small intestine containing small amount of pasty material and large intestine having faecal matter and gases. Opinion:-Cause of death is as a result of “shock and haemorrhage” due to head injury. Time of death:-About one day before. 5. After conducting the investigation, charge sheet (Ext.Ka.10) was submitted by PW-5 K.P. Dixit. On which, after taking cognisance, the case was committed to the court of Session where, on 5.2.1991, charge of an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the accused-appellant. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses. Their testimony, in brief, is as follows:- 6. PW-1 Harbansh Singh is the father of the deceased as well as of the accused-appellant. He stated that his first wife died 2-2½ months after the birth of the accused-appellant, whereafter he married another lady and out of second wedlock he has two sons, namely, Arjun Singh (the deceased), Kartar Singh, and a daughter, namely, Jasveer Kaur (PW-3). He stated that he divided his property into four parts giving 4 acres each to his three sons and kept 4 acre of land for himself. He stated that on account of above partition, the accused-appellant was not happy as he wanted half share of the land. On account of this, he had bad relations with the deceased. He stated that efforts were made to have a settlement but the settlement was deferred to await the marriage of PW-1's daughter, namely, PW-3, with a promise that the remaining land would be divided thereafter. On account of this, he had bad relations with the deceased. He stated that efforts were made to have a settlement but the settlement was deferred to await the marriage of PW-1's daughter, namely, PW-3, with a promise that the remaining land would be divided thereafter. PW-1 stated that despite the above assurance, the accused-appellant was not happy. He stated that his third son, namely, Kartar Singh is serving outside the district. In respect of the incident, PW-1 stated that on 1.6.1990 at about 8.00 a.m. when the deceased was ploughing the field, he and his daughter (PW-3) went to the field to serve food to the deceased, when they reached there, he noticed Harphool in a petrified state. There he noticed that Balwinder Singh (the accused-appellant), who had an axe (Kulhari), was inflicting blows on the deceased. When they challenged the accused, after inflicting the blows, he ran away. He stated that he witnessed the entire incident. He stated that thereafter he went and lodged the first information report. He proved the Chik FIR placed before him which was marked as Ext.Ka.1. 7. In his cross-examination, he stated that when his first wife died, accused Balwinder Singh was 2-2½ years old. At present Balwinder Singh would be aged about 40 years. He stated that Balwinder Singh was married 4-5 years before and he has two daughters. He stated that two years ago, Balwinder Singh separated and started residing separately with his family. One year prior to the incident, he had partitioned the property and that partition had taken place in a Panchayat. He stated that the partition was an oral partition and there was no written record of it. He stated that the place of occurrence is about ½ to ¾ miles south to his residence. That field is of 20 Bigha area. The said field is exclusively in the name of Arjun Singh (the deceased). West to the plot there is 'Rasta' and next to the 'Rasta' there is a 'Talab'. He stated that at the time of incident there was no crop standing. When he was about 100 paces away from the spot, he had noticed Balwinder Singh assaulting the deceased but he did not run away seeing the informant. He stated that Balwinder Singh must have taken 4-5 minutes to kill the deceased. He admitted that his statement was recorded before the Magistrate. When he was about 100 paces away from the spot, he had noticed Balwinder Singh assaulting the deceased but he did not run away seeing the informant. He stated that Balwinder Singh must have taken 4-5 minutes to kill the deceased. He admitted that his statement was recorded before the Magistrate. When confronted with his statement made before the Magistrate, PW-1 stated that what he had stated before the Magistrate was that when they reached near the field, Balwinder Singh had spotted him and had escaped towards south but had not stated that he had escaped while they were away from the field. He stated that he does not know as to how it was written that before he could reach the field, Balwinder Singh had escaped. After stating as above, PW-1 gave graphic description of the blows by stating that the first blow was inflicted on the neck, thereafter on the face and thereafter again on the neck and when the deceased fell, blows were inflicted on his leg. He described the axe as one which is used to cut the wood. He stated that the axe had 5 inch wide blade and that blade was fixed on a wood piece about a yard long. He stated that the first infliction was from the front on neck and face thereafter the infliction was on the leg. On being confronted with his statement in the first information report that he had not mentioned in the report that he had gone to the field to serve food, he stated that might have been left out in the report. On being further cross-examined, he stated that his second wife is alive. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was killed in the darkness of the night by some unknown person and because of his second wife, he has implicated the accused-appellant. 8. PW-2 Dr. H.P. Agrawal, who is the autopsy surgeon, proved the autopsy report and proved the injuries as have been noticed above. The autopsy report was marked as Ext.Ka.2 on his deposition. The doctor in his testimony accepted the possibility of death to have occurred at about 8.00 a.m. on 1.6.1990. He was recalled at the request of the prosecution. PW-2 Dr. H.P. Agrawal, who is the autopsy surgeon, proved the autopsy report and proved the injuries as have been noticed above. The autopsy report was marked as Ext.Ka.2 on his deposition. The doctor in his testimony accepted the possibility of death to have occurred at about 8.00 a.m. on 1.6.1990. He was recalled at the request of the prosecution. On recall, he stated that the incised wound found on the body of the deceased could be a result of infliction of blows with Kulhari and that the abrasions noticed could be on account of friction from hard object. He again reiterated that death as a consequence of those injuries was possible to have occurred on or about 8.00 a.m. of 1.6.1990. In his cross-examination by the defence, he stated that there could be a margin of 6 hours in the estimated time of death and, therefore, it is possible that the death might have occurred between 4 and 5 a.m. in the morning of that day. He specifically stated that stomach was empty and not even liquid was present. Large intestine contained faecal matter. In respect of injury no.1, which was 25 cm x 15 cm in dimension, he stated that such an injury could be inflicted if the blade of axe/Kulhari is 10 inch wide. In respect of abrasions found on the body of the deceased, he admitted the possibility of such abrasions being a result of friction from some hard blunt object. 9. PW-3 Jasveer Kaur is the sister of the deceased and step-sister of the accused-appellant. She reiterated what was stated by PW-1 in respect of the incident and about infliction of Kulhari blows by the accused-appellant on the deceased. She also stated that whereabouts of Harphool are not known as he has run away due to fear of the in-laws of the accused-appellant. In her cross-examination, she stated that the deceased had left the house to go to the field at about 6 or quarter to 6 a.m. and at that time she had served tea to the deceased and other than tea he had taken nothing. She stated that she is not aware whether the deceased had attended to nature’s call before going to the field. She stated that she had not served any snacks with tea to the deceased. She stated that she is not aware whether the deceased had attended to nature’s call before going to the field. She stated that she had not served any snacks with tea to the deceased. She stated that on that day she had prepared vegetable and Roti to serve the deceased and she carried the same in a box with her father (PW-1) to the field. In respect of the partition between the brothers, she stated that partition had taken place about 1-1½ years before the incident and that the place of occurrence was the field of the deceased (Arjun Singh). She stated that she was not aware till the marriage of Balwinder Singh (the accused-appellant) that Balwinder was her stepbrother. She came to know about it only 6-7 months after the marriage of the accused-appellant. She stated that she came to know about the relationship only when some dispute started in respect of partition of the land, whereafter she came to understand that she happens to be accused-appellant's step-sister. She stated that after partition of the land, Balwinder Singh (the accused-appellant) started living separately and in her (PW-3’s) house, her father, mother and deceased Arjun Singh used to reside. She stated that prior to the incident, there was no fight between the brothers and that there was never a report in respect of any incident between them but whether Balwinder Singh (the accused-appellant) was annoyed with the partition or not, she is not aware of, because he never said anything to her. She stated that on the day of incident, Arjun Singh had taken the plough (Hal) to the field and had also taken a stick for herding the bullocks. Harphool had also gone with Arjun Singh. She stated that the field was being ploughed for the last 1-2 days. She specifically stated that when she reached the field, Arjun Singh was not lying on the field but she saw both Arjun Singh and Balwinder Singh standing over there and Balwinder Singh was assaulting Arjun Singh with axe/Kulhari. At that time, Arjun Sigh had nothing to defend. On being specifically questioned as to whether Arjun Singh had died before she and her father arrived at the spot, PW-3 stated that when she reached near Arjun Singh, by that time Arjun Singh had fallen and when she tried to shake him, she found him dead. At that time, Arjun Sigh had nothing to defend. On being specifically questioned as to whether Arjun Singh had died before she and her father arrived at the spot, PW-3 stated that when she reached near Arjun Singh, by that time Arjun Singh had fallen and when she tried to shake him, she found him dead. On being confronted with her previous statement before the Magistrate wherein she had stated that Arjun Singh was dead before she reached the spot, she stated that the aforesaid statement is correct because when she reached near the body of Arjun Singh and tried to shake his head, she found that he was dead. She stated that her father was ahead of her. She clarified that when she first saw Arjun Singh, he was standing and by the time she could reach the spot, he was lying. She also stated that when Balwinder Singh had inflicted Kulhari blows at Arjun Singh, he was standing in front of Arjun Singh. On being specifically questioned from where she saw the infliction of Kulhari blows on the leg region of the deceased, she stated that she saw the entire incident while she was running towards the spot seeing that Balwinder Singh was inflicting axe blows on Arjun Singh. She stated that while running she did not specifically notice where Kulhari blows were inflicted, but she did scream that his brother should not be assaulted. She stated that she did not specifically notice whether her step-brother Balwinder Singh had inflicted blows on the leg of Arjun Singh but she did notice that her brother Balwinder Singh was inflicting injuries to Arjun Singh with the axe/Kulhari. She specifically stated that the injuries were inflicted from the sharp side of the axe. At this stage the witness started weeping. She denied the suggestion that in the darkness of the night some unknown person killed the deceased, of which information was received in the morning and upon which they went to the spot. She also denied the suggestion that she is telling lies because she is the step-sister of the deceased. 10. PW-4 Chhatra Singh is the constable who carried the body of the deceased after inquest for autopsy. He proved that the body was carried to the mortuary in a sealed condition. She also denied the suggestion that she is telling lies because she is the step-sister of the deceased. 10. PW-4 Chhatra Singh is the constable who carried the body of the deceased after inquest for autopsy. He proved that the body was carried to the mortuary in a sealed condition. He stated that body had to be carried to Bijnor which is 100 Km away from the spot, therefore they reached next morning. 11. PW-5 K.P. Dixit is the Investigating Officer of the case. He stated that after registration of the case, he took over its investigation. The inquest was conducted by him. He proved that he had taken blood-stained and plain earth from the spot, of which seizure memo was exhibited as Ext.Ka.3. He stated that site plan was prepared by him after inspection and on the instructions of the informant. The site plan was exhibited as Ext.Ka.4. He stated that thereafter he recorded the statement of the witnesses. He proved the inquest report, photo lash, challan lash, letter to C.M.O. and letter to R.I. On his statement, those documents were exhibited as Ext.Ka.5 to Ext.Ka.9. He stated that on 10.6.1990 he arrested the accused. On 7.7.1990 he got the statement of the informant and Jasveer Kaur recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He stated that after completing the investigation, on 10.7.1990 he submitted charge-sheet which was marked as Ext.Ka.10. He also proved the Chik F.I.R. and the G.D. Entry of the FIR by recognising the signature of the clerk, namely, constable Jaipal Singh. The Chik F.I.R. was exhibited as Ext.Ka.1 and G.D. Entry thereof was exhibited as Ext.Ka.11. In his cross-examination, he stated that he arrived at the spot by about 12.00 noon. The place of occurrence is about 20 Km from the police station and the 'Rasta' is kaccha. He used a cycle to cover the distance and the informant Harbansh Singh and witness Harphool were also on their respective cycles with him. He stated that the informant had given the information at the police station and he had arrived at the spot with them on cycle. He stated that none of the witnesses had any injuries on their body. He stated that adjoining the field where the occurrence took place, there was field of Mahendra Singh and west to that field there was a 'Rasta' and thereafter there were fields of Ramesh, etc. He stated that none of the witnesses had any injuries on their body. He stated that adjoining the field where the occurrence took place, there was field of Mahendra Singh and west to that field there was a 'Rasta' and thereafter there were fields of Ramesh, etc. He stated that at the spot he did not notice any lathi, danda, panni or any weapon but he did notice a plough (Hal) though there were no bullocks. He also stated that at the spot he did not notice any utensil. He stated that there was a large gathering at the spot and had there been any utensil, the same might have been removed. He clarified his earlier statement by stating that he arrived at the spot at 3-3.15 p.m. 12. The incriminating material appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused-appellant while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused-appellant stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of enmity. He also stated that on account of partition there was no animosity and that he was happy with the partition. The accused-appellant, however, did not examine any witness in defence. 13. The trial Court upon finding that it was a day time incident and there were two eye witnesses to support the prosecution case and their account found corroboration in the medical evidence, convicted the appellant, as above. 14. Questioning the judgment and order of the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no strong motive proved by the prosecution for the crime inasmuch as the partition had already taken place about 1-1½ years before the incident and no untoward incident between the two step-brothers or between the accused-appellant or his father was ever reported. The incident occurred in the field surrounding which there was no Abadi. The main eye witness of the incident was Harphool, who has not been examined. The first information report would indicate that the witnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) arrived at the spot after the deceased was killed and therefore, it is an incident which occurred before PW-1 and PW-3 could reach the spot and as the prosecution has suppressed the main witness, namely, Harphool, who was the help of the deceased, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution. It has also been pointed out that the deceased was found empty stomach whereas the statement of PW-3 would indicate that she had served tea to the deceased about 2 hours before. The doctor (PW-2) specifically stated that neither there was any food material nor any liquid in the stomach of the deceased which would suggest that the prosecution story is contrived and because the accused-appellant is the step-brother of PW-3 and his father was under influence of his second wife i.e. step-mother, who was alive, the accused-appellant has been falsely implicated. It has been submitted that the axe has not been recovered and that according to the ocular account, the blade of the axe had a width of 5 inch which would under no circumstances inflict the kind of injury as was noticed in the shape of injury no.1 recited in the autopsy report. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant also invited our attention to the recital in the autopsy report that the large intestine was loaded with faecal matter to demonstrate that the deceased had not attended to nature's call. It was argued that it is a common practice of villagers to defecate early morning. Presence of faecal matter would suggest that incident occurred in the night, which is a possibility accepted by the doctor as, according to him, death could have also occurred in the wee hours, that is to say, at 4.30 a.m. 16. In a nutshell, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the witnesses examined were inimical to the appellant; the ocular account suggests that PW-1 and PW-3 either witnessed the incident from a distance or they arrived at the spot when the deceased was already dead; and that the best evidence, which could have been through Harphool, has been withheld, as a consequence whereof, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. It is submitted that the trial Court has not tested the evidence on the touch stone of probabilities and has accepted the prosecution story as gospel truth, therefore its judgment be set aside. 17. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that it is a case where there is no suggestion to PW-2 or to any of the witnesses in respect of ante timing of the first information report. The informant (PW-1) is the natural father of the deceased as well as of the accused-appellant. 17. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that it is a case where there is no suggestion to PW-2 or to any of the witnesses in respect of ante timing of the first information report. The informant (PW-1) is the natural father of the deceased as well as of the accused-appellant. He has fully supported the prosecution case. The step-sister of the accused-appellant, namely, Jasveer Kaur (PW-3), has equally supported the prosecution case and she has also specifically disclosed that the accused and she were brought up as brother and sister and they could never feel that they were step brother and sister. It was only after the marriage of the accused-appellant, she could sense that the accused-appellant was born of a different mother. All of this would suggest that witness PW-3 had no animosity with the accused-appellant. She deposed what she actually witnessed therefore, there is no good reason to disbelieve her. Non-examination of Harphool would not be fatal to the case as he was a servant and his whereabouts were not known as after the incident he had escaped due to fear of the in-laws of the accused-appellant. In respect of presence of faecal matter in the large intestine of the deceased, learned AGA submitted that it is not a determining factor to ascertain whether the incident occurred in the wee hours of the morning as much would depend on the habit of a person as also whether there has been complete evacuation during defecation or not. In respect of the conflict of medical evidence with ocular account in respect of the dimension of neck injury qua the dimension of the axe blade, it was submitted that if two blows are inflicted on or about the same neck line, it is possible that it may give appearance of a single incised wound of a larger dimension. It was submitted that otherwise there is no such conflict which may render the ocular account completely unacceptable. It has also been pointed out by learned AGA that the defence has not alleged that the deceased had other enemies also. There is no suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the incident occurred in some other manner at some other place. It was submitted that otherwise there is no such conflict which may render the ocular account completely unacceptable. It has also been pointed out by learned AGA that the defence has not alleged that the deceased had other enemies also. There is no suggestion to the prosecution witnesses that the incident occurred in some other manner at some other place. Learned A.G.A. concluded by submitting that this is a case of day time occurrence, where the first information report was prompt, considering the distance and the mode of transport available; there are eye witnesses of the incident; and their testimony is in sync with the medical evidence therefore, the trial Court was justified in recording the conviction. He thus prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 18. Having considered the rival submissions we find that there is no dispute in respect of the spot, which is the field of the deceased i.e. the son of PW-1. The prosecution witnesses of the incident are father (PW-1) and sister (PW-3) of the deceased. They have disclosed good reason for their presence at the spot at the time of incident. According to PW-3, the deceased had gone to the field to plough the same early morning at about 6.00 a.m. While going to the field he had taken only tea served by PW-3 therefore, it is quite natural for PW-3, the sister of the deceased, to take food for the deceased who was working at the field. Since PW-3 is a girl, it is quite natural that her father, who was residing with her, would accompany her to the field, which was at a distance of over half a mile from the village Abadi. In these circumstances, the presence of PW-1 and PW3 at the spot is not improbable or unnatural. Insofar as the submission that the eye witnesses reached the spot after the incident had occurred is concerned, nothing has come out, during cross-examination, which may discredit their statement with regard to they having arrived at the spot at the time of incident. In fact, PW-1 has given a graphic description of the manner in which the blows were inflicted. According to PW-3, PW-1 was ahead and PW-3 was following PW-1 and therefore, PW-1 witnessed more than what PW-3 could. In fact, PW-1 has given a graphic description of the manner in which the blows were inflicted. According to PW-3, PW-1 was ahead and PW-3 was following PW-1 and therefore, PW-1 witnessed more than what PW-3 could. Moreover, PW-3 being a girl might be in a state of shock at the time when she witnessed the incident and therefore, she did not specifically notice as to how many, and where, injuries were inflicted on her brother. Her testimony in these circumstances cannot be discredited merely because she could not specifically describe the number and site of injuries inflicted. Perhaps it could be that from some distance she noticed her two brothers standing face to face and one inflicting blows on the other while she was running and screaming to stop infliction of blows and by the time she arrived at the spot, her brother (the deceased) had fallen. There appears truth in her statement and nothing could be elicited from her cross examination to doubt her deposition. 19. In respect of the stomach of the deceased being empty despite consumption of tea, as alleged by PW-3, we do not find it to be a circumstance which may discredit the testimony of PW-3 because it is quite possible that if the tea had more water than milk, it might pass through the stomach and enter the small intestine quicker than usual. Moreover, the defence has not cross examined the autopsy surgeon in respect of possibility of tea remaining in the stomach after two hours of its consumption. Noticeably, pasty material was noticed in the small intestine at the time of autopsy. Accordingly, we do not find the circumstance that the stomach contents were nil sufficient to raise a doubt in respect of the eye witness account rendered by PW-3. 20. Insofar as the presence of incised wound of the dimension of 25 cm x 15 cm, recited by way of injury no.1 in the autopsy report, is concerned, no doubt, PW1, disclosed the width of blade of axe as 5 inch only but, admittedly, the axe has not been recovered therefore, what was the actual width of the blade is just an estimate may be by guess-work or by imagination. Hence nothing much turns on that. Hence nothing much turns on that. Further, the trial court has recorded good reasons for the same by stating that it is quite possible that on account of multiple blows on or about the same area, an incised wound of a larger dimension may appear than the dimension of the blade. Noticeably, there is ocular account in respect of infliction of two blows on the neck of the deceased; one blow on the face and others on leg. This ocular evidence is largely corroborated by the medical evidence i.e. the autopsy report. 21. At this stage, we may notice few decisions of the Supreme Court on the issue as to when a conflict between medical evidence and ocular account would render the ocular account untrustworthy and unreliable. In Thaman Kumar vs. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2003) 6 SCC 380 , in paragraph 16, it was observed as follows: “16. The conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes. There may be a case where there is total absence of injuries which are normally caused by a particular weapon. There is another category where though the injuries found on the victim are of the type which are possible by the weapon of assault, but the size and dimension of the injuries do not exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon. The third category can be where the injuries found on the victim are such which are normally caused by the weapon of assault but they are not found on that portion of the body where they are deposed to have been caused by the eye-witnesses. The same kind of inference cannot be drawn in the three categories of apparent conflict in oral and medical evidence enumerated above. In the first category it may legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding assault having been made from a particular weapon is not truthful. However, in the second and third category no such inference can straightway be drawn. The manner and method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and many other similar factors will have to be taken into consideration in judging the reliability of ocular testimony. 22. The manner and method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and many other similar factors will have to be taken into consideration in judging the reliability of ocular testimony. 22. In Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 , view taken earlier, in Punjab Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1984 Supp SCC 233, that, (1) if direct evidence is satisfactory and reliable, the same cannot be rejected on hypothetical medical evidence, and (2) if medical evidence when properly read shows two alternative possibilities but not any inconsistency, the one consistent with the reliable and satisfactory statements of the eye witness has to be accepted, was affirmed. Similarly, in Abdul Sayeed vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 , the legal position, in this regard, has been crystallised, in paragraph 39 of the judgment, as follows: “39. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-a-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.” 23. The above view has been affirmed in Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayyum and others, (2019) 12 SCC 1 . 24. In the light of the law noticed above, what we have to examine is whether the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true. In our view, the medical evidence does not rule out infliction of blows with Kulhari (axe) as is the ocular account. 24. In the light of the law noticed above, what we have to examine is whether the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true. In our view, the medical evidence does not rule out infliction of blows with Kulhari (axe) as is the ocular account. In so far as dimension of the injury found on the neck (i.e. injury no.1 recited in the autopsy report) is concerned, that is not a determinative factor to discredit the ocular account completely for the following reasons: (a) that the dimension of the blade of an axe mentioned in the ocular account i.e. 5 inch may be a result of guesswork because that axe has not been recovered; (b) that the increase in dimension may be a result of the second blow on the same area (neck line) as is the ocular account; and (c) the doctor has admitted the possibility of that wound being a consequence of infliction of blow from an axe. 25. As we find the ocular account rendered by PW-1 and PW-3 reliable and not inconsistent with medical evidence; and that the first information report was promptly lodged considering the distance and the mode of transport available, we do not find any error in the judgment and order of conviction recorded by the trial court. More so, when it is a case where a natural father and step sister of the accused, with whom no ill-will could be demonstrated, have deposed against the accused-appellant. Keeping in mind that accused-appellant's natural father and step-sister (who was brought up as real sister of the accused-appellant) have deposed against him and have proved the charge, we do not wish to draw an adverse inference for non-production of Harphool who is stated to have left the employment due to threat extended by the in-laws of the accused-appellant as stated by PW-3. We are therefore of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 26. For the reasons above, the judgment and order of the trial Court is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. 27. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. We are therefore of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 26. For the reasons above, the judgment and order of the trial Court is affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. 27. The appellant is reported to be on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He shall surrender before the court concerned forthwith from where he shall be sent to jail to serve the sentence awarded by the trial court. 28. Let a copy of this order be sent to the trial court along with the record for information and compliance.