Skip to main content

Value of medical evidence is only corroborative

Supreme Court

Baliraj Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh

MANU/SC/0500/2017

25.04.2017

Criminal

Value of medical evidence is only corroborative; it proves that, injuries could have been caused in manner alleged

Present appeal arises out of impugned judgment passed by a Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, upholding conviction and sentence passed by trial Court against Appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. High Court found the statements of eyewitnesses to be cogent and trustworthy, therefore concurred with judgment of Trial Court and dismissed appeal of Appellant-Accused. Case on behalf of Appellant is that, most of prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses, particularly eyewitnesses belong to one family and they had a longstanding grudge against Accused over property dispute between both families, and hence, Appellant was falsely implicated in retaliation.

Admittedly, there was no peace and harmony between victim and Accused groups as they locked horns with each other over a longstanding dispute dating back 30 years, relating to mutation proceedings of some landed property. Thrust of prosecution to prove charge against Appellant was mainly on evidence of (PW 8)--wife of complainant and sister-in-law of deceased, (PW 9)-- wife of deceased and (PW12)--family friend of deceased, to make an endeavour that, in all probability, it was Accused who committed the guilt. In facts of present case, circumstances warrant application of due care and caution in appreciating the statements of eyewitnesses because of fact that, prime eyewitnesses are related inter-se and to deceased. Courts below erred in not applying principle of strict scrutiny in assessing evidences of eyewitnesses.

Post-mortem report prepared by Doctor upon examining body of deceased, that, there was a punctured wound just below angle of right mandible over right side of neck 1" x 1/2" x 3" and on dissection, he found that major artery was punctured and trachea was cut. There was hematoma underlying whole side of neck and in opinion of Doctor, injury was caused by a sharp piercing object. In his evidence, Doctor confirmed that, cause of death was due to excessive haemorrhage form punctured wound over right side of neck caused by sharp piercing object and due to punctured major blood vessel, over right side of neck.

It was on record that, at instance of Accused-Appellant, police have recovered (Ext. P7) from arhar field the lathi allegedly used in offence. However, nowhere it is recorded that, seized lathi contained any sharp edges with iron coated. Even it was not sent for examination of Doctor to ascertain whether fatal injury could be resulted by it. Moreover, record says that, blood on bloodstained cap of deceased seized from place of occurrence did not tally with that of deceased.

Another glaring deficiency is that Sub-Inspector who conducted seizure proceedings and prepared seizure memo has not been examined by prosecution. It is settled proposition in criminal jurisprudence that ordinarily, value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that, injuries could have been caused in manner alleged and nothing more. The use which defence can make of medical evidence is to prove that, injuries could not possibly have been caused in manner alleged and thereby discredit eyewitnesses. In this case, nature of injury, contradiction about time of arrival of witnesses, contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, non-examination of Police officer who conducted seizure and subsequent improvement by one of eye witness casts a serious doubt on prosecution's case. Supreme Court set aside conviction against Appellant as recorded by trial court and upheld by High Court and Appellant is acquitted of charges.

Relevant

Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0150/1983
: AIR 1983 SC 484

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376
2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551
3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467
4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298
5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567)



5.The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)
(i)Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii)Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising :
(a)Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b)Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii)Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)
(iv)Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v)Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects…

Delay - condon - limitation

The proof by sufficient cause is a condition precedent for exercise of the extraordinary restriction vested in the court. What counts is not the length of the delay but the sufficiency of the cause and shortness of the delay is one of the circumstances to be taken into account in using the discretion.

Supreme Court of India
State Of Nagaland vs Lipok Ao & Ors on 1 April, 2005
Author: A Pasayat
Bench: Arijit Pasayat, S.H. Kapadia
           CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.)  484 of 2005

PETITIONER:
State of Nagaland

RESPONDENT:
Lipok AO & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/04/2005

BENCH:
ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) 4612 of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

The State of Nagaland questions correctness of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench refusing to condone the delay by rejecting the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short the 'Limitation Act') and conseque…

Passport - DRT - power to impound - High Court

1) Satwant Singh Sawhney v. D.Ramarathnam. Asst. Passport Officer, 1967 (3) SCR 52
2) Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 (1) SCC 248
3) Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Ltd. v. Grapco Industries Ltd., (1994) 4 SCC 710
4) Suresh Nanda v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2008 (3) SCC 674
5) Damji Valaji Shah & another Vs. L.I.C. of India & others [AIR 1966 SC 135]
6) Gobind Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & others [1999 (7) SCC 76]
7) Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others [AIR 1999 SC 3125]
8) Sanjeev R.Apte v. I.F.C.I. Ltd., and others, 2008 (154) DLT 77
9) Smt.Annai Jayabharathi v. The Debt Recovery Tribunal & Anr., CDJ 2005 Ker HC 171
10) Allahabad Bank v. Radhakrishna Maity, AIR 1999 SC 3426
11) Ramalinga v. Radha, 2011 (4) CTC 481
12) Sinnaswami Chettiar v. Aligi Goundan and others, AIR 1924 Madras 893 (OVERRULED)
13) Nallagatti Goundan v. Ramana Gounda and others, AIR 1925 Madras 170
14) Income Tax Officer v. M.K.Mohammad…