Judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan on Ocular Account
Ocular account is the eyewitness testimony of a person who witnessed the crime take place. Medical evidence is the physical evidence collected from the crime scene, including the victim's body and the accused's body. In general, ocular evidence is given preference over medical evidence, especially when the ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and confidence-inspiring.
This is because ocular evidence is the direct testimony of a witness who saw the crime happen, while medical evidence is the interpretation of physical evidence by a medical expert. Ocular evidence is also more likely to be reliable than medical evidence, as it is not subject to the same potential for bias or error.
However, there are some cases where medical evidence may be given preference over ocular evidence. For example, if the ocular evidence is contradicted by other evidence, such as physical evidence or DNA evidence, then the medical evidence may be given more weight. Additionally, if the ocular evidence is found to be unreliable, for example, due to the witness's poor eyesight or intoxication, then the medical evidence may be given more weight.
2023 SCMR 1278
"Ocular account -- Medical evidence - Preference --- Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring , the same is given preference over medical evidence and the same alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused."
In the case of 2023 SCMR 1278, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that ocular evidence is given preference over medical evidence, especially when the ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and confidence-inspiring.
The Court stated that:
"Where ocular evidence is found trustworthy and confidence inspiring , the same is given preference over medical evidence and the same alone is sufficient to sustain conviction of an accused ."
The Court went on to say that:
"If the ocular account is fully reliable in support of an incident, then a minor contradiction in the medical and ocular evidence should lose their weight."
This case establishes the principle that ocular evidence is given preference over medical evidence, especially when the ocular evidence is found to be trustworthy and confidence-inspiring.