In this week’s review of Court Judgments, we look at Supreme Court’s observation highlighting the importance of eyewitness account, Delhi High Court declining UPSC aspirant’s plea to appear in exam, Allahabad High Court’s observation that an earning spouse is responsible to protect life, liberty & dignity of other as long as marriage survives, Chhattisgarh High Court’s judgment regarding a divorce case and Kerala High Court’s judgment in respect to an appeal regarding granting legal heirship in case of missing person. Supreme Court: Eyewitness account can’t be discarded merely because of inconsistencies with medical evidence. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi was hearing an appeal in the case Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor vs. State of Gujarat. The appeal was against a Gujarat High Court judgment that had overturned the acquittal by the trial court. The appellant in this case was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for the murder of one Jayanthibhai on 10 July 1995. In the brutal killing of Jayanthi bhai, he succumbed to knife injuries during the incident. An FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased alleging that the appellant committed the murder along with his father and brother. The prosecution based its case on the eyewitness of the prosecution witness and the dying declaration of other witnesses. However, the trial court acquitted all the 3 accused based on medical evidence. However, the High Court reversed the acquittal and held the appellant liable. Hence the appellants approached the Supreme Court. The defence on behalf of the appellants referred to the trial court’s observation which noted discrepancies in the manner in which the knife blows were allegedly inflicted, and the identification of the weapon used. The contention was that as per the medical evidence presented during the trial, the knife seized as evidence could not have caused the fatal injury sustained by the deceased. However, the Court pointed out that the trial court had placed undue emphasis on relatively minor contradictions in witness statements, ignoring the overall testimony of the prosecution witness. It noted that the statement of the witness should not be entirely negated merely because as per the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, the fatal injuries could not be caused by the recovered knife. The Court referred to the judgment in State of H. P. vs. Lekh Raj (2000) which emphasized that it was common for different witnesses to provide slightly varying accounts of details. The Court noted that unless these contradictions were of substantial significance, they should not be used to reject the entire body of evidence. The Court relied on Darbara Singh vs. State of Punjab (2012) and Anvaruddin vs. Shakoor 1990 to emphasize the importance of ocular evidence over the opinion of medical experts. On the aspect of discrepancies, the Court stated that there are bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. It emphasized that the evidence provided by eyewitnesses and post-occurrence witnesses was consistent and sufficiently corroborated the prosecution’s account of events. Hence, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal. The Court highlighted the need to avoid undue reliance on fanciful doubts when considering the rule of the benefit of the doubt. Allahabad HC: Earning spouse has a duty to protect life, liberty & dignity of other as long as marriage survives In the case Santosh Kumar vs. Gayatri Devi, the Allahabad High Court observed that as long as the marriage survives, it remains the duty of the earning spouse to protect the life, liberty, and dignity of the other. The bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Rajendra Kumar was hearing an appeal filed by one Santosh Kumar, challenging an order passed by the Family court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to provide Rs. 7 thousand per month as interim maintenance to his wife. The contention of the appellant was that his salary was Rs. 16,500 currently, and earlier it was about Rs. 15,470. Therefore, it was unreasonable of the court to award the maintenance amount of Rs. 7,000 per month. The court considered the same, and also in view of the fact that there were no children born from the marriage, it felt that the family court had erred by awarding nearly 50% of the total monthly income of the appellant, towards interim maintenance.