ISSUE:
Whether eye-witness accounts can be relied upon in lieu of expert medical evidence, in case of conflict?
Whether the retirement of officer, expert of employee witness is a bar to taking of disciplinary action against them for deliberate dereliction of duty prejudicial to the prosecution’s case?
RULE:
Omissions by the key witnesses, whether intentional or not, require close scrutiny. Credible and consistent eye-witness testimony can outweigh conflicting medical evidence. Expert witnesses provide scientific analysis, but the final determination rests on the assessment of all available evidence.
The court cannot discard the statements of friendly or related eyewitnesses when their presence is proved to be natural and their statements are a truthful account of the occurrence.
The courts are justified to direct appropriate disciplinary action against officers or expert and employee witnesses, for deliberate dereliction of their duties, whether they are in service or retired.