THE RELEVANCY OF OPINION OF MEDICAL AND AUTOPSY

REPORTS UNDER THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT: AN EMPIRICAL

ANALYSIS THROUGH DECIDED CASES

Submitted To:

Mrs. Vinita Tripathi, Faculty of Law (Law of Evidence)

Submission Date:

30-11-2020

Submitted by:

Radhika Sharma,

Roll No.-113, Section-C, Semester- VII, B.A. LL.B. (Hons.)

Hidayatullah National Law

University, Post Uparwara, Abhanpur,
 2

New Raipur – 492002 (Chhattisgarh)

Contents

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................iii
Table of Cases................................................................................................................................iii
Introduction......................................................................................................................................v
Research Methodology.................................................................................................................viii
1. Statement of Problem........................................................................................................viii
2. Rationale of the Study.......................................................................................................viii
3. Research Questions..............................................................................................................ix
4. Review of Literature............................................................................................................ix
5. Nature and Type of Study.....................................................................................................x
6. Source and Type of Data......................................................................................................x
Chapter 1 – Aspects of Medical Evidence.......................................................................................1
Chapter 2 - Value of Medical Evidence in Criminal Trials............................................................3
Chapter 3 – Medical Evidence vis-à-vis Direct Evidence...............................................................5
Chapter 4 – Court’s Treatment of Medical Evidence......................................................................9
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................14
Bibliography..................................................................................................................................15
 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to the Almighty who gave me the strength to accomplish the project with sheer hard
work and honesty. This research venture has been made possible due to the generous co-
operation of various persons. To list them all is not practicable, even to repay them in words is
beyond the domain of my lexicon.

This project wouldn’t have been possible without the help of my teacher Mrs. Vinita Tripathi,
Faculty of Law at HNLU, who had always been there at my side whenever I needed some help
regarding any information. He has been my mentor in the truest sense of the term. The
administration has also been kind enough to let me use their facilities for research work. I thank
them for this.
 4

TABLE OF CASES
S. No. Case Name Citation
1 Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 500.
Anneppa v. State of Karnataka
2 1978 Mad LJ (Cr) 393

3 Dheerajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v State of Gujarat AIR 2003 SC 2855

4 Dias v. Augustin AIR 1936 PC 154
5 Duraipandi Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1973 SC 659
6 Goppessur v. Bissessur 16 CWN 265, 273.
7 Gowrishankara Swamigalu v. State of Karnataka AIR 2008 SC 2349
8 Hari Singh v. Lachmi 12 PLR 1921
1983 CrLJ NOC 66 (Gau-
9 Kapil Kumar v. State of Assam
DB)
10 Lekhraj v. State of Gujarat 1998 CrLJ 396 (SC).
11 Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat AIR 1992 SC 2186
12 Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 642
13 Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee (2009 )9SCC 221
Mayappa Dhondanna Padeade v. State of Maharashtra
14 1981 SCC (Cr) 790.

15 Mayor v. State of Gujarat AIR 1983 SC 66

16 Mayur Panabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat 1982 CriLJ 1972
17 Naginder Bala v. Sunil Chandra AIR 1960 SC 706.
18 P Venkaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1985 SC 1715
Piara Singh v. State of Punjab
19 AIR 1977 SC 2274.

20 Pratap Misra v. State of Orissa AIR 1977 SC 1307

21 Purshottam v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1980 SC 1873
22 Queen v. Ahmad Ally 11 Suth WR Cr 25
23 R v. Ahmed Ali 11 WR Cr. 25
24 Raj Kishore Rabidas v. The State AIR 1969 Cal 321
25 Ram Narain v. State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1727
 5

26 Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs. Regency Hospital Ltd (2009) 9 SCC 709
Re Mandivalappa,
27 AIR 1966 Mys 142.

28 Shamboo Singh v. State 1975 WLN (UC) 139.

Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat
29 AIR 1983 SC 484.

30 Soundarapadi v. State 1982 LW (Cr) 92 (Mad)

31 State (Delhi Administration) v. Gulzari Lal AIR 1979 SC 1382.
32 State (Delhi Administration) v. Sube Singh 1985 CrLJ 1190 (Del).
33 State of Gujarat v. Patel Limba Manji, 1979 Cr LR (Guj.) 411.
State of Gujarat v. Thakarda Mataji Thakarda Ruberji
34 1982 CrLC 113 (Guj)
Kethaji
35 State of Haryana v. Ram Singh AIR 2002 SC 620
36 State of Maharashtra v. Datta Maruti Salagar 1998 CrLJ 3756 (Bom)
37 State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh 1992 CriLJ 3454
38 State of Maharashtra v. Vithal 1985 CrLJ 664.
39 State of U.P. v. Rashid (2010) 1 SCC 153
40 State v. Ratan Jit Singh Jivanji Vaghela 1984 (1) CrLC 306 (Guj).
41 Sunil Chandra v. State AIR 1954 Cal 305
AIR 1997 SC 2193
42 Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia vs. State of Gujarat

43 Yunus Ali v. R 32 CWN 783

 6

INTRODUCTION

Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1872 defines evidence as that which a court of justice is permitted
by law to take into consideration for making clear or ascertaining the truth of the fact or point in
issue.

Evidence means and includes:

(i) All statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witness in
relation to matters of fact under inquiry. Such statements are called oral evidence.
(ii) All documents produced for the inspection of the court. Such documents are called
documentary evidence.

Section 322 (1) of Cr Pc states that the word evidence means all facts and statements which have
been disclosed by inquiry and is not restricted to depositions recorded by the magistrate. Further,
according to s 244 of Cr Pc, evidence means all evidence which the court permits or requires to
be made by witnesses.

The statement of witnesses include statements made by them in cross-examination and re-
examination.

Evidence is tendered only during the trial stage and it is accepted after having given the opposite
side to rebut it through cross-examination. Evidence will not be admitted during an appeal.

The following are the major types of evidence before the court:

(1) Direct evidence is evidence given where witness testifies directly of his own
knowledge as to the main facts or facts in issue.

(2) Circumstantial evidence which tends to prove the ultimate fact in issue; presumptive
evidence. It is the evidence derived from circumstances as distinguished from direct
and positive proof. It is the inferences of a fact from other facts proved.
 7

(3) Substantial evidence is evidence which a reasonable man will accept as adequate for
arriving at a decision in a case.

(4) Corroborative evidence is the evidence that concurs with another evidence.

Direct and circumstantial evidence differs merely in their logical relation to the fact in issue. In
direct evidence, evidence as to the existence of the fact is direct. Whereas circumstantial
evidence relates to the existence of facts which raise a logical inference as to the existence of the
fact in issue.

Medical evidence is only corroborative evidence and it is not substantive evidence.

Research Methodology

1. Statement of Problem

The main problem that this project report is centred around is analysing the exact extent of
relevance of expert opinion with respect to medical and autopsy reports, as under the Indian
Evidence Act.

This project tackles the various novel principles and concepts that are associated with the
relevancy of medical opinion and expertise in the arena of Evidence Law and its respective effect
on the growth and development of Criminal Law in India. This project undertakes a detailed
study of the same in light of the contemporary scenario. The study has been mostly
supplemented with observations of various courts of law situated in India.
 8

2. Rationale of the Study

The principle justification behind this study is that in today’s day and age, where Criminal Law
has a growing and inevitable impact on the lives of all citizens (especially in the Indian context),
it becomes necessary to understand exactly how the concept of relevancy of medical reports
came to be conceived and evolved.

In light of this, the author is of the opinion that the first and foremost and perhaps the most
important step in the pursuance of this endeavour is to study the how important of a role do such
reports play in a particular case and how they compare as against other types of evidence. This
project analyses the severe impact that such medical reports have had on the evolution of
Criminal Law in India vis-à-vis the concept of relevance of expert evidence. This is the driving
force behind the adoption of this study.

3. Research Questions

This project is focussed around the following objectives:

 To understand the basic facts and aspects that are related to the concept of medical
evidence, with special emphasis to the treatment granted to medical evidence in India.
 To analyse, in depth, the value that has been accorded to medical evidence under the
Indian legal system, with respect to Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This
has been corroborated through the ratio of several decided cases of High Courts and
Supreme Court.
 To critically examine the co-relation between the concept of medical evidence and direct
evidence and how they influence one another in criminal trials.
 Lastly, to examine how Courts in India have treated medical evidence and the important
precedents that have been laid down, which provide clarity when dealing with the
medical evidence.
 9

4. Review of Literature

The author of this project has utilised several textual sources for its completion and it would be
incomplete without critically analysing the same in light of its utility and usefulness.

 Dr. Jaising P. Modi, A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Lexis Nexis
(25th Edition), 2016

This book reigns supreme in its field since its first edition in 1920. It is a well-established,
specialized and highly recommended text on Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology. The present
twenty-fifth edition of this monumental work is revised by Justice K Kannan, a noted Judge and
a renowned scholar, in collaboration with specialist contributors from diverse fields. Retaining
the flavour of Modi’s pristine brilliance, this thoroughly revised edition traces comprehensively
all major developments in the field of law and forensic medicine. In this revised edition,
references to obsolete medical literature have been weeded out and several chapters have been
rewritten in light of latest scientific advancements. The section on Toxicology has been
extensively updated to make it more useful to forensic scientists and analytical chemists. The
present edition is helpful in understanding both the complexities and the nuances of the subject
and its practical application.

 Sarkar, The Law of Evidence, Lexis Nexis (19th Edition), 2016.

The law of evidence occupies a pivotal role in the effective functioning of the judicial system as
the existence of substantive rights can only be established by relevant and admissible evidence. It
lays down the quintessential aspects of judicial investigation for effective administration of
justice. With rapid advances in diverse fields of life, human relations have undergone an
unforeseen transformation, presenting new conflicts and controversies. The law of evidence has
to therefore regularly groom itself for facing the emerging developments which pose
unprecedented problems in the collection of evidence and proof of facts. Over the years, the
Courts through judicial precedents and diverse case law have enriched the lexicon of the law of
 10

evidence. Sarkar’s Law of Evidence is one of the country’s most relied on and respected titles
and has been in print for almost a century. The sheer fact that the book has gone through many
editions, stands testimony to its intrinsic worth and scholastic wealth. This edition critically
analyses the latest case law and captures the latest legislative amendments.

5. Nature and Type of Study

This study employs various methods of research. It is essential a doctrinal and observational
study, wherein data and information pertaining to the matter at hand has been collected from
archived databases and published sources. It involves a two-fold approach (1) production of
information about the law and (2) systematisation of the legal norms.

6. Source and Type of Data

As mentioned above, the data and information relating to the project topic has been taken from
secondary sources which describe, discuss, interpret, comment upon, analyse, evaluate,
summarize, and process the various primary sources available at hand. The secondary sources
utilised in the present study are in the form of archived databases and published literary sources
such as textbooks and reference books.
 11

CHAPTER 1 – ASPECTS OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE

Medical evidence consists of doctor’s report of the examination, reports of the ballistic firearms
or fingerprint experts or of the chemical examiner and serologist, and the doctor’s oral evidence
or other expert’s oral evidence.

The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution, has great corroborative value. It proves that
the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and death could have been caused by
the injuries, so that the prosecution case being consistent with matters verifiable by medical
science, there is no reason why the eyewitness should not be believed. The defence can make use
of medical evidence to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been possibly caused in the
manner alleged by the prosecution and if it can do so, it discredits the eyewitness. 1 Medical
evidence is usually opinion evidence.2

Medical evidence has never been considered to be substantive evidence of the charge, but has
been accepted as corroborative of the charge. It has been accepted since long that knowledge of
medicine and human body is a matter of science and hence, courts have treated expert medical
opinion with respect. In spite of it, a medical man cannot be allowed to give his opinion on
matters with are within the province of the court to decide. Indeed, it is expected of law courts
that they would not surrender their will, independence or judgment to an expert and to in all
cases in which evidence is adduced before it, after giving it such weight as they may think it
deserves, makeup their own mind upon an issue in respect of which the expert testimony has
been given.

In Mayor v. State of Gujarat3, the Supreme Court observed the following - the learned judge was
right in observing that ‘our courts has always taken the doctors as witness of truth.’ Even where a
doctor has deposed in court, his evidence has got to be appreciated like the evidence of any other
witness and there is no irrebuttable presumption that a doctor is always a witness of truth. A

1
Sunil Chandra v. State, AIR 1954 Cal 305
2
Duraipandi Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 659
3
AIR 1983 SC 66.
 12

doctor is not concerned as to who committed the offence or whether the person brought to him is
a criminal or an ordinary witness, his primary effort must be to save the life of the person
brought to him and inform the police in medico-legal cases. Where an argument was advanced
on behalf of an accused that the eyewitnesses did not disclose the name of the assailant to the
doctor, the Supreme Court in P Venkaiah v State of Andhra Pradesh 4, observed that the doctors,
before whom the dead bodies are produced or injured persons are brought, either themselves take
the dying declaration or hold the post-mortem immediately and if they start examining the
informants they are likely to become witnesses of the occurrence which is not permissible.

In his professional career, the medical practitioner will have to frequently give evidence as a
medical expert in a court of law to prove the innocence or guilt of the accused, or to authenticate
or disprove a criminal charge of assault, rape or murder brought against an individual. He must
remember that as a medical expert, his responsibility is very great, for very often he will find that
he is the only reliable evidence on which depends the life and the liberty of a fellow being.
Therefore, he has to acquire the habit of making a careful note of all the facts observed by him,
and to learn to draw conclusions logically and correctly after considering in detail the pros and
cons of the case, instead of forming hasty judgments. It is equally essentially important that a
medical expert must have a fair knowledge of all the branches of medical and ancillary sciences
taught to a medical student in the course of his studies.5

The doctors are experts in their own right and when they examine a person and give opinion, it
does not normally mean that their opinion is not correct.6

In State of Haryana v Ram Singh 7, it was held that while it is true that the post-mortem report by
itself is not a substantive piece of evidence, but evidence of the doctor conducting the post-
mortem can by no means be ascribed to be insignificant. The significance of the evidence of the
doctor lies vis-à-vis the injuries appearing on the body of the deceased person and likely use of
the weapon therefore and it would then be the prosecutor’s duty and obligation to have the
corroborative evidence available on record from the other prosecution witness.

4
AIR 1985 SC 1715.
5
State of Gujarat v. Patel Limba Manji, 1979 Cr LR (Guj.) 411.
6
State (Delhi Administration) v. Sube Singh, 1985 CrLJ 1190 (Del).
7
AIR 2002 SC 620
 13

CHAPTER 2 - VALUE OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL TRIALS

In Queen v. Ahmad Ally8, Norman J observed:

“The evidence of a medical man, or the skilled witness, however eminent, as to what he thinks,
may or may not have taken place under a particular combination of circumstances, however
confidently he may speak, is ordinarily a mere matter of opinion. Human judgment is fallible.
Human knowledge is limited and imperfect. New and previously unobserved phenomena which,
till they have been recorded are supposed to be impossible, are constantly being noticed”

In Anant Chintaman Lagu v. State of Bombay9, a question arose before the Supreme Court as to
where the medical evidence as to the death of poising was negative. It was held that the offence
of murder by poisoning can still be proved by circumstantial evidence. Hidayatullah J, who
spoke for the majority view observed as follows:

“To rely upon the findings of the medical man who conducted the post mortem and of the
chemical analyzer as decisive of the matter is to render the other evidence entirely fruitless.
While the circumstances often speak with unerring certainty, the autopsy and the chemical
analysis taken by themselves, may be most misleading. No doubt, due weight must be given to
the negative finding at such examinations. But, bearing in mind, the difficult task which the man
of the medicine performs and the limitations under which he works his failure should not be
taken as the end of the case, for on good and probative circumstances an irresistible inference of
guilt can be drawn”

In Naginder Bala v. Sunil Chandra10, the trial judge’s charge to the jury was as follows:

“When a medical witness is called in as an expert, he is not a witness of fact. Medical evidence
of an expert is evidence of opinion, not of fact. Where there are alleged eyewitnesses of physical
violence which has said to have caused the hurt, the value of medical evidence by prosecution is
only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in a manner
alleged and thereby discredit the eyewitness. Therefore, you must remember this particular point
8
11 Suth WR Cr 25.
9
AIR 1960 SC 500.
10
AIR 1960 SC 706.
 14

of view that if you believe the eyewitness, then there is no question of having it supported by
medical evidence, unless the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out
all possibility that such injuries could take place in the manner alleged by the prosecution and
that is a point which you should bear in mind, because if you accept the evidence of the
eyewitness, no question of further considering the medical evidence is to test the eyewitnesses’
version as to whether any of the particular injuries shown in the manner alleged by the
prosecution. But if you don’t believe the eyewitness, the consideration of the medical evidence in
any manner, becomes unnecessary”

Dealing with the above portion of the charge to the jury, SK Das J, who delivered the majority
opinion in the above mention case, observed:

“We do not think that any exception can be taken to the observations made above in the context
of the two versions which the jury had to consider. One version was that the Colonel had been
assaulted and thereby sustained the injuries, the versions was that he had sustained injuries by a
fall on a rough surface like the masonry letter box. None of the two doctors were giving direct
evidence of how the injuries were caused. The learned Judge was therefore, right in directing the
jury in the way he did about the medical evidence in the case.”

However, Hidayatullah J who delivered the minority opinion, in that case, observed as follows:

“I do not think that the direction is either direct or incomplete. It is incorrect, because a medical
witness who performs a post mortem examination is a witness of fact, though he also gives
opinion on certain aspects of the case. Further, the value of the medical witness is not merely a
check upon the testimony of eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may
establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence. If a person is shot at close range,
the marks of tattooing found by the medical witness is not merely a check upon the testimony of
eyewitnesses, it is also independent testimony, because it may establish certain facts, quite apart
from the other oral evidence. If a person is shot at close range, the marks of tattooing found by
the medical witness would show that the range was small, quite apart from any other opinion of
his. Similarly, fractures of bones, depths and size of the wounds would the show the nature of the
weapon used. It is wrong to say that it is only opinion evidence, it is often direct evidence of the
facts found upon the victim’s person.”
15
 16

CHAPTER 3 – MEDICAL EVIDENCE VIS-À-VIS DIRECT EVIDENCE

A glaring inconsistency between the direct evidence and medical evidence in respect of the entire
prosecution case is a defect in a prosecution case. 11 Unless the medical evidence goes so far that
it completely rules out all the possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner
alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of eyewitnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of
alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. 12 Notwithstanding the ocular
testimony of eyewitnesses and medical evidence, it would be open to the court to accept the
eyewitness account, if it is otherwise unshakable.13

Ordinarily when a witness says such and such person assaulted the victim with a spear, then it is
to be understood that the spear was used to pierce or puncture the body of the victim. Where
neither in the FIR nor in the statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC, it was stated that any
of the assailants was armed with a spear, but the eyewitnesses at the trial stated that the
appellant-accused was armed with a spear and he inflicted injuries with the same on the
examination, the incised wounds found on the two victims were not pierced or punctured
wounds, on charge of murder, the accused was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted.14

Mere probability stated by the doctor does not render the prosecution case doubtful when the
doctor stated that in juries 1 to 12 sustained by the deceased could be the result of either two
shots or more than two shots but the evidence of the eyewitnesses clearly showed that the
injuries 1 to 10 could be caused by one shot and injury 11 could be caused by another shot. As
regards injury 12 the doctor stated that it could not be said to be an injury independent of a shot
fired but either it could be caused by a stray pellet or by fall of the deceased on the ground. The
Supreme Court held that there was no inconsistency between the medical and the oral evidence.
The conviction of the accused recorded under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was
upheld.15

11
Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274.
12
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484.
13
State of Maharashtra v. Vithal, 1985 CrLJ 664.
14
Mayappa Dhondanna Padeade v. State of Maharashtra, 1981 SCC (Cr) 790.
15
Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC 642.
 17

Where the medical evidence is in conflict with other evidence, the advantage of the same goes to
the accused.16

The prosecution evidence showed that three separate blows were given to the deceased. The
medical examiner who performed the post-mortem examination found only one wound and noted
the nature and dimensions of the wound. He opined that the wound found by him could not be
the result of two simultaneous blows, it was found that in the ordinary course of human events
and experience also, it was extremely improbable, if not altogether impossible, that three blows
simultaneously given by three different persons from different directions with sharp edged
weapons would land with such precision and exactitude so as to cause a single wound of such
clear cut margins and such dimensions and other characteristics as those of the external wound
found by the medical officer on the head of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the
version of the prosecution witnesses with regard to this vital fact was inherently improbable or
intrinsically incredible. The ocular account of the occurrence was falsified by the medical
evidence and the accused were acquitted.17

Where the witness speak of only one gun shot, and the injuries are found to have been caused by
two gun shots, the evidence of eyewitnesses is not credit-worthy.18

Where there is conflict between oral and medical evidence the accused to entitled to benefit of
doubt and must be acquitted.19 Thus, where the prosecution witnesses stated that the accused
persons inflicted injuries by swords and dharia on the deceased, but in the post mortem
examination no incised wound was found, the accused were acquitted. 20 Where the prosecution
case was that the death was due to injuries inflicted by an aruval, but the medical witness stated
that the injuries could not be caused by an aruval, the accused were acquitted.21

Where the medical witness is such as to completely rule out all possibilities that injuries have
been caused in the manner as alleged by the prosecution, such medical evidence is very

16
State v. Ratan Jit Singh, Jivanji Vaghela 1984 (1) CrLC 306 (Guj).
17
Purshottam v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1980 SC 1873
18
Shamboo Singh v. State 1975 WLN (UC) 139.
19
Soundarapadi v. State, 1982 LW (Cr) 92 (Mad)
20
State of Gujarat v. Thakarda Mataji Thakarda Ruberji Kethaji, 1982 CrLC 113 (Guj)
21
Soundarapadi v. State, 1982 LW (Cr) 92 (Mad)
 18

important factor in assessing the testimony of eyewitnesses and in determining whether the
testimony of eyewitnesses can be safely accepted.22

It is unsafe to rely upon the direct evidence of eyewitnesses when it is in conflict with the
medical evidence.23

If the evidence of the witness for the prosecution is totally inconsistent with the medical
evidence, it is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless reasonably
explained, it is sufficient to discredit the entire case.24

Where the prosecution witness stated that all the accused persons were armed with deadly their
respective weapons to the deceased and many of the blows fell on the ribs, the abdomen of the
deceased, not a single incised wound was found in the deceased, it was held that if the oral
evidence were to be accepted, there would be incised wounds all over the body of the deceased.
Therefore, there was apparent irreconcilable inconsistency between the oral and the medical
evidence.

Where there is conflict between medical evidence and the ocular testimony of the witnesses as to
fatal injuries, the accused cannot be convicted. Where the medical officer in post mortem found
fracture of the frontal bone of the skull of the deceased towards left side. But not a single
eyewitness stated that any accused person gave any blow on the head of the deceased, I was held
that there was major conflict between medical evidence and oral evidence and the accused was
acquitted.

In Dheerajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v State of Gujarat 25, it was held that a combined reading of
evidence of PW9 who examined the deceased and PW7 who conducted post-mortem shows there
is no discrepancy between the ocular and medical evidence. It was further held that to accord
undue primacy to hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitness account
which has to be tested independently and not treated as variable.

22
Re Mandivalappa, AIR 1966 Mys 142.
23
Anneppa v. State of Karnataka, 1978 Mad LJ (Cr) 393
24
Ram Narain v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727
25
AIR 2003 SC 2855
 19

Where the medical evidence on both sides is equally balanced, the benefit of doubt must be
given to the accused. In such a case, the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order of
acquittal recorded by the High Court.26

26
State (Delhi Administration) v. Gulzari Lal, AIR 1979 SC 1382.
 20

CHAPTER 4 – COURT’S TREATMENT OF MEDICAL EVIDENCE

 Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs. Regency Hospital Ltd.27

“The opinion of physicians and surgeons may be admitted to show the physical condition of
a person, the nature of a disease, whether temporary or permanents, the effect of disease or of
physical injuries upon the body or mind, as well as in what manner or by what kind of
instruments they were made, or at what time wounds or injuries of a given character might
have been inflicted, whether they would probably be fatal, or actually produce death, the
cause, symptoms and peculiarities of a disease and whether it would be likely to cause death,
the probable future consequence of an injury, when consequence anticipated are such as in
the ordinary course of events may be reasonably expected to happen and are not merely
speculative or possible.”

 Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee28

Since medical science is complicated, expert opinion provides deep insight. The Court, for
the purpose of arriving at a decision on the basis of the opinions of experts, must take into
consideration the difference between an expert witness and an ordinary witness, the opinion
must be based on a person having special skill or knowledge in medical science. It could be
admitted or denied. Whether such an evidence could be admitted or how much weight should
be given thereto, lies within the domain of the Court. The evidence of an expert should,
however, be interpreted like any other evidence.

 State of U.P. v. Rashid29

The knowledge of medicine and human body is a matter of science. A Court of law, which
has not acquired special knowledge and skill in medical science would not be justified in
brushing aside opinion of a medical officer who has performed the post-mortem of a dead
body, without any evidence on record to the contrary supported by the opinion of learned
authors of standard textbooks.
27
(2009 )9SCC 709
28
(2009 )9SCC 221
29
(2010 )1SCC 153
 21

 Gowrishankara Swamigalu v. State of Karnataka30

It may be true that absence of medical evidence by itself may not be a crucial factor in all
cases, but the same has to be taken into consideration as a relevant facor when other evidence
point towards the innocence of the appellant.

 Hari Singh v. Lachmi31

Opinion of medical men based on hearing the evidence of other witnesses without observing
facts is not of much value. Thus, opinions of doctors based mostly on prescriptions and on
their general knowledge of the disease are always indirect evidence and not of much weight
when compared with the evidence of doctors who personally attended to the patient.

 Sunil Chandra Roy v. The State32

A medical witness, called in as an expert, is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an
advisory character, given in the form of an opinion on the facts submitted to him and not to
be given by reference to facts collected independently by himself.

 Mayur Panabhai Shah v. State of Gujarat33

Even where a doctor has deposed in court, his evidence has got to be appreciated like the
evidence of any other witness and there is no irrefutable presumption that a doctor is always
a witness of truth.

 Goppessur v. Bissessur34

When medical men who attended the patient during his illness give their testimony as to the
bodily or mental state of the deceased, their evidence is not that of experts but of men who
has observed relevant facts and whose evidence derives an enhanced value from the
circumstances that they had favorable opportunities, peculiar facility and obvious incentive
for accurate observation and that their training would fit them to appreciate and describe
what they observed.
30
AIR 2008 SC 2349
31
12 PLR 1921
32
AIR 1954 Cal 305
33
1982 CriLJ 1972
34
16 CWN 265, 273.
 22

 Tanviben Pankaj Kumar Divetia vs. State of Gujarat35

The opinion of the doctor who had actually examined the injured person should be preferred
to the opinion of the other doctor which was based merely on the injury report. The doctor
who had held the post-mortem examination had occasion to see the injuries of the deceased
quite closely and in absence of any convincing evidence that he had deliberately given a
wrong report, his evidence is not liable to be discarded.

 Lekhraj v. State of Gujarat36

Where probable time of death of the deceased was given by the doctor who performed the
autopsy it cannot be said that there was no definite evidence as regards time of death.

 State of Maharashtra v. Datta Maruti Salagar37

Evidence of the victim that the injuries were caused by the blunt side of the axe, cycle chain
and stick cannot be rejected merely because the doctor admitted of the possibility of his
injuries being cause by a fall.

 R v. Ahmed Ali38

Nariman, J made the following observations on medical evidence “The evidence of a medical
man or other skilled witnesses, however eminent, as to what he thinks may or may not have
taken place under particular combination of circumstances, however confidently he may
speak, is ordinarily a matter of mere opinion. Human judgement is fallible, human
knowledge is limited and imperfect.

 Pratap Misra v. State of Orissa39

It is well settled that the medical jurisprudence is not an exact, science and it is indeed
difficult for any Doctor to say with precision and exactitude as to when a particular injury
was caused.

35
AIR 1997 SC 2193
36
1998 CrLJ 396 (SC).
37
1998 CrLJ 3756 (Bom)
38
11 WR Cr. 25
39
AIR 1977 SC 1307
 23

 State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh40

Before a court can place reliance on the opinion of an expert, it must be shown that he has
not betrayed any bias and the reasons on which he had based his opinion are convincing and
satisfactory.

 Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat41

It is well settled that positive evidence in a case is that of the eye-witnesses and the evidence
of a medical expert is merely an opinion corroborating the same. The value of medical
evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been cause in the
manner alleged and nothing more. Unless the medical evidence goes so far that it completely
rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by the
eye-witnesses, the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged
inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.

 Yunus Ali v. R42

Medical experts should have regard primarily to the facts and not draw upon their
imagination; otherwise the administration of justice would depend upon their individual
idiosyncrasies and become unstable and unworkable.

 Dias v. Augustin43

Where medical evidence is conflicting and the trial judge after carefully and dispassionately
weighing the respective theories comes to a clear conclusion in fact, it would not be proper or
safe or in accordance with sound practice to reverse it in appeal.

 Raj Kishore Rabidas v. The State44

Where medial evidence ran counter to the evidence of eye witness, it would not be proper for
the Court to rely upon the oral evidence of the eye witnesses unless there is some
circumstantial evidence to support it.
40
1992 CriLJ 3454
41
AIR 1983 SC 484
42
32 CWN 783
43
AIR 1936 PC 154
44
AIR 1969 Cal 321
 24

 Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval v. State of Gujarat45

Doctor who has examined the deceased and conducted the post-mortem is the only
competent witness to speak about the nature of injuries and the cause of death. Unless there
is something inherently defective the court cannot substitute its opinion to that of the Doctor.

 Kapil Kumar v. State of Assam46

Medical findings are the acid test of judging the truthfulness of the evidence of eye-
witnesses.

 Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay47

Medical evidence is hardly conclusive and decisive, because it is primarily an evidence of

opinion and not of fact. To rely upon the medical evidence as decisive is to render the other
evidence as entirely fruitless.

45
AIR 1992 SC 2186
46
1983 CrLJ NOC 66 (Gau-DB)
47
AIR 1960 SC 500
 25

CONCLUSION

The victims of criminal offences seek justice through the Courts by filing criminal cases for
awarding punishment to the offenders. The state is required to prove the guilt of the offenders
through the public prosecutor by producing adequate evidences. Medical evidences and scientific
techniques are also used by investigating agencies to prove the guilt of the accused. In view of
current scientific developments, the medical and scientific evidences can play a major role in
identifying the accused and proving his guilt. These evidences are mainly corroborative pieces of
evidences and such scientific evidences cannot be easily rejected by the courts. Medical and
scientific expert witnesses are those who are admitted to testify from a peculiar knowledge of
science i.e. forensic science, to give their opinion in evidence.

The expression “evidence” means “oral or documentary or circumstantial proof of the allegations
in issue between the parties in a legal proceeding”. “Medical evidence” means a proof given by
medical expert, which is based on his scientific knowledge skill and personal experience.

The opinion of a medical expert cannot outweigh the testimony of a respected and independent
witness. But if there is a conflict between the two, then medical evidence is given preference.
The testimony of eye witnesses, therefore, cannot be thrown out merely on the ground of its
inconsistency with medical evidence because medical evidence is only of probative and
corroborative.

In case of inconsistency in medical and ocular evidence, the evidence of eye witness may not be
believed by the court. When direct evidence is unsatisfactory and the evidence of gunshot injury
prima facie appears to be of rifle injury, then the evidence of ballistic expert can cure
inconsistency.

Conviction is sustainable if injury report not produced provided the evidence of reliable and
probable witnesses are on the record showing that injuries were caused by the accused. Hence,
medical and scientific evidences play an important role in the approximation of criminal justice.
26
 27

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Since the author has tried to keep the scope of this project limited to the concept of Evidence
Law, for better and focussed research, the author has utilised limited books and resources, which
were most appropriate for the case at hand. These resources are:

 Dr. Jaising P. Modi, A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, Lexis Nexis
(25th Edition), 2016
 Sarkar, The Law of Evidence, Lexis Nexis (19th Edition), 2016.
 Ratanlal and Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence, Lexis Nexis (26th Edition), 2017.
 Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of the Law of Evidence, Central Law Publications (22 nd
Edition), 2016.

The author has also made use of some generic websites which aided the process of research and
data collection. These websites are:

 http://www.manupatrafast.com/
 http://heinonline.org/
 https://books.google.co.in/
 https://link.springer.com/
 https://www.jstor.org/