Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rlw s.149 - Murder - Head severed from trunk- Incident witnessed by daughter and also father of the deceased - Trial court convicted six persons - High Court acquitted the accused persons- respondents - Appeal against acquittal by son of the deceased - Held: It was not the case of the accused that they were prejudiced by the alleged delay in dispatch of the FIR to the nearest Magistrate competent to take cognizance of such offence - Non-recording of certain relevant entries in the inquest report did not constitute a material defect so grave to throw out the prosecution story and the otherwise reliable testimonies of prosecution witnesses that remained uncontroverted - There was no major contradiction either in the evidence of the witnesses or any conflict in medical or ocular evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the respondents - The minor improvements, embellishments etc., were insignificant and ignored since the evidence of the witnesses otherwise corroborated each other in material particulars - The view expressed by High Court was not plausible one - Trial court had correctly analyzed the material on record to arrive at its conclusion - Order of conviction passed by trial court restoreCriminal Jurisprudence: Burden to prove guilt - Held: The guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubJs - However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not all doubts. Two views - Held: If two views are possible 011 the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adoptedEvidence: B Testimony of child witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Evidence of a child witness must be evaluated carefully" and with greater circumspection because a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him and thus a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring. Medical evidence - Evidentiary value of - Held: Is only corroborative and not conclusive ...:. In case of a conflict between oral evidence and medical evidence, the former is to be preferred unless the medical evidence completely rules out the oral evidence. c D E Testimony of related/interested witness - Evidentiary value of - Held: Evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that the witnesses are related to each other or to the deceased - In case the evidence has a ring of truth in it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, it can be relied upon. Minor contradictions in prosecution evidence - Effect on prosecution case - Held: Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence - The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness - It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. Delay/Laches: Delay in examination of prosecution witness/child witnesses - Effect of- Held: The trial court observed that child witness (PW5) was cross-examined on practically every detail of the prosecution story and her statement corroborated every part thereof - It was rightly observed by the Trial Judge that the delay was on account of the fact that the Investigating Officer wanted to assure himself of the veracity of her statement and hence, she was examined after G she had time to recover from the shock of the incident and compose herself - Under these circumstances, any delay in examining this witness uls. 161 of Cr.P.C. will not prejudice the_pTosecution - Code - ·of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.161.Delay in sending FIR to Magistrate - Held: Although in termsof s.J 57 Cr:P.C., the police officer concerned is required to forward a copy of the FIR to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence, promptly and without undue delay, it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal application that whenever there is some delay in sending the FIR to the Magistrate, the prosecution version becomes unreliable and the trial stands vitiated - When there is posiii"'le evidence to the fact that the FIR was recorded without unreasonable delay and investigation started on the basis of that FIR and there is no other infirmity brought to the notice of the Court, then in the absence of any prejudice to the accused, it cannot be concluded that the investigation was tainted and the prosecution story rendered unsupportable - Code of Criminal Procedure, I 97 3 - s.157.