In the instant case, the said report did not indicate the exact time the incident occurred or any evidence showing that the Deceased was given a prompt medical attention. The post mortem report attached clearly states that the primary cause of death was hemorrhage as a result of gunshot. It is however difficult to rule out delay on the part of the officers and the medical team in promptly attending to the deceased knowing fully well that excessive bleeding may lead to death. In addition, the Court observes that there are contradicting versions as to the circumstances which led to the death of Ikyase Chia. During cross examination P.W 2 said that he saw the police officers shoot Ikyase Chia on his shoulder and chest and covered him with leaves before bundling him back on the Hilux vehicle. This statement however contradicts his written statement on oath wherein he claimed that he saw the police officers forcefully drag Ikyase Chia out of the vehicle and started beating him and the next thing they heard were two gun shots. The testimony of PW 2, raises a doubt as to whether he is a witness of truth and the Court will place little or no weight on it. The law is trite that where a witness gives oral testimony, such testimony cannot contradict or discredit any documentary evidence in relation to the same matter as the latter is more reliable and authentic. Documentary evidence is the plank or basis upon which an oral evidence is assessed. As a general principle of law, oral evidence must clearly agree with the documentary evidence tendered as exhibit which however, cannot be varied, altered or interfered or even amended in any way by oral evidence except to throw more light on it. However, this is of no consequence in view of the fact that the death of the deceased from injuries from gunshot wounds on him by the agents of the Defendant is not in doubt. Notwithstanding that there is a contradiction in the statement of the P.W 2 it is evident from the facts adduced, that Ikyase Chia lost his life as a result of a deliberate action of the agents of the Defendant. The Defendant on the other hand has not 24