Medical Testimony Not Merely Corroborative But Independent Evidence, May Establish Facts Apart From Other Oral Evidence: J&K High Court

Highlighting the critical role of medical evidence in criminal trials, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has observed, that the evidence of a medical witness is very crucial to corroborate the case of prosecution and it is not merely a check upon testimony of eyewitnesses as it is also independent testimony because it may establish certain facts, quite apart from the other oral evidence.While hearing a criminal conviction appeal and acquitting one Ravinder Singh of attempted murder Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed, “..The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution has great corroborative value as it proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged. Non-examination of the Doctor who issued injury certificate certainly causes prejudice to the appellant/accused. So, non-production of the doctor to confirm the report/evidence was fatal to the case. Testing the prosecution case on the touchstone of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, impugned judgment is not based on reason and logic”The case stemmed from an incident in 2003, when Chandu Ram was allegedly ambushed by appellant Ravinder Singh and his brother Hari Singh. According to the prosecution, Ravinder Singh attacked the victim with a sword, inflicting serious injuries on his left shoulder and back. Hari Singh, wielding a lathi, fled the scene without engaging in the attack. The victim was rescued by nearby villagers, and a police case was registered, leading to Ravinder Singh's conviction by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kathua, under Sections 324, 325 of the RPC, and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. Hari Singh was acquitted.Aggrieved of his conviction Singh argued that the trial court's decision relied heavily on hostile witnesses and lacked forensic support. He submitted that the trial court failed to grant the accused a fair opportunity to explain all incriminating circumstances under Section 342 of the CrPC. Furthermore, he emphasized the absence of the medical officer who issued the injury certificate, arguing that this undermined the prosecution's case. On the other hand, the prosecution contended that the victim's testimony, corroborated by the recovery of the weapon, was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Despite inconsistencies, it argued that the overall evidence pointed conclusively to the accused's guilt.Court's Observations: Adjudicating upon the matter Justice Koul began by reiterating the principle that appellate courts must thoroughly reassess evidence, particularly in cases involving convictions. The court referenced Lal Mandi v. State of West Bengal (AIR 1995 SC 2254), stressing that an appellate court is duty-bound to independently evaluate the evidence and cannot merely defer to the trial court's findings if inconsistencies are apparent.Central to the judgment was the role of medical evidence as the court highlighted that medical testimony is not secondary but independent evidence that can establish facts beyond what eyewitnesses may testify. Justice Koul criticized the prosecution for failing to produce the medical officer who issued the injury certificate, noting that this deprived the defense of the opportunity to cross-examine the doctor and weakened the prosecution's case. He stated that this omission caused significant prejudice to the accused and undermined the integrity of the trial.Further, the court found the reliance on hostile witnesses problematic. Justice Koul acknowledged that while portions of hostile witness testimonies could be admitted, the testimonies in this case were inconsistent and lacked coherence. Since witnesses provided contradictory statements during cross-examinations, the court observed that convicting an accused based on such fragmented testimonies without substantial corroboration is legally untenable.“In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be‟ and “must be‟ is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions… The court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense”, the court remarked. Another crucial aspect was the absence of forensic evidence. Justice Koul noted that the failure to submit the weapon for forensic examination was a major lapse as without evidence linking the weapon to the injuries, the prosecution's narrative lacked the necessary evidentiary foundation, he stated. The court also referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in State v. Laly (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1424), emphasizing that while direct eyewitness testimony could suffice, corroborative forensic evidence is vital in cases where witness credibility is in question.In alignment with...

Medical Testimony Not Merely Corroborative But Independent Evidence, May Establish Facts Apart From Other Oral Evidence: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags