In his evidence, P.W.12 – the Doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued the post mortem certificate, deposed that injury Nos.1, 5 and 6 were possible with M.O.3 – stone, injury Nos.3 and 4 were possible with M.O.4 - knife and that the fractures noted in the head and the neck, which were fractures of frontal and middle scalp, were also possible with M.O.3 only. No doubt, in his cross examination, P.W.12 opined that M.O.4 was not a blunt object. If we closely examine the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased with reference to the medical evidence, they support the ocular evidence of the eyewitnesses. The only inconsistency we find between the medical evidence and the testimony of the direct witnesses is in relation to M.O.4, which is sought to be pressed into service in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused. As per the medical evidence, all the injuries were caused with blunt objects. However, P.W.12 - the Doctor, opined that M.O.4 is not a blunt object. This naturally creates a serious suspicion as to whether M.O.4 was used in the commission of the offence by the accused. The law is well settled that if the medical evidence is inconsistent with the direct evidence, the Court prefers to give weight to the direct evidence over the medical evidence. Where the eyewitnesses’ account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to the alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as conclusive. (See Vijay Paul vs. State (Govt. of NCT) of
