Doctor's Accident Register Entry Not Gospel Truth, Can't Be Pitted Against Unassailable Eyewitnesses To Discredit Them: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh and Justice P Dhanabal thus refused to interfere with the conviction and sentence of a man for the murder of his wife.

“Considering the serious condition of the deceased and considering the fact that a Doctor will only focus on giving treatment to the person, who is in a critical condition, every other entry made in the Accident Register cannot be taken to be a gospel truth and it cannot be pitted against the unassailable eyewitness account to disbelieve the same,” the court said.

The court was deciding a criminal appeal filed by a man against the conviction by the Fast Track Mahalir Court, Ramanathapuram.

As per the prosecution, the appellant Muthukumar was married to the deceased and living with their 4 children. While so, a dispute arose between the couple, and the husband started suspecting the wife's loyalty and chastity. The deceased then came to her parents' house with her children. On November 24, 2017, when the deceased was going with her parents, her husband was standing on the way and called her to him. When the deceased came to the husband, he allegedly pulled her and slit her throat with a knife, and also cut her right ear.

The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital and later succumbed to her injuries. Case was registered and charges were framed under Sections 342 and 302 IPC. The trial court concluded that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the husband.

On appeal, the husband argued that the statement of eyewitness, the father and mother, was highly doubtful. It was argued that though the eyewitnesses stated that the incident happened in an open field, the accident register showed that the incident happened inside the house.

It was also submitted that if the statement of the father and mother should be believed, the police would've seized their bloodstained clothes since they admitted to have lifted the body of the deceased. Thus, the husband argued that the eyewitness could not have seen the incident.

The State, on the other hand, argued that even if the statement of the eyewitness was not relied upon, the statement given by the deceased to the Doctor could be taken to be a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Evidence Act and even based on that, the charge of murder would be established.

To this, the husband argued that the prosecution had built its case based on the statement of a witness, and if the same fails, the entire case of the prosecution must also fall and the prosecution could not be allowed to come up with a new case relying on the dying declaration since it would cause grave prejudice to the accused.

The court considered the judgments of the Supreme Court where it was held that the injury certificate does not amount to an admission as the Doctor, at that stage, was only required to fill up the columns in a normal manner. The court noted that at that stage, the doctor was not concerned with the finer details of the case and was only filling up the columns provided in the Register. The court thus emphasised that the entries made in the Accident Register could not be taken to be gospels of truth.

The court considered the evidence of the father and mother of the deceased and noted that there was nothing to discredit their evidence in the cross examination. The court also noted that the injuries recorded in the postmortem certificate corroborated with the eyewitness account regarding the incident. The court held that the witness statement inspired the confidence of the court.

The court that a judge was only expected to assess the entire evidence and see if the proof beyond reasonable doubt fell within the judicial conscience of the judge. The court added that if a judge was expected to see every case with a scientific precision, almost every case will have to end in acquittal, considering the sloppy nature in which investigation is conducted.

“Obviously, a Judge is expected to assess the entire evidence and see if the proof beyond reasonable doubt also falls within the judicial conscience of the Judge. Considering the sloppy nature in which investigations are conducted, if a Court is to expect for a scientific precision on every evidence collected by the prosecution, every other case will only end in acquittal and will become impossible for the Court to convict the accused person,” the court said.

In the present case, the court noted that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence and did not require the interference of the court. Thus, noting that the prosecution had proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the court dismissed the appeal.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. A. Thiruvadikumar, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Muthukumar v The State

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 145

Case No: Crl. A. (MD)No.123 of 2024