Opinion of an expert, therefore, is a relevant fact. The court may, thus, took the expert opinion into consideration. But appreciation of evidence is the court’s job. It is, thus, for the court to arrive at an opinion as to which part of contradictory expert opinion should be accepted or whether in a given situation ocular evidence should be believed in preference to medical evidence or vice versa[1].
The expert is not a witness of fact. Opinionative evidence of the doctor is primarily an evidence of opinion and not of fact. It is only a corroborative piece of evidence as to the possibility that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution. Unless the medical evidence rules out such possibility of injury being caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution version, the testimony of the eye witness cannot be doubted on the ground of its inconsistency with medical evidence[2].
Once there is a clear contradiction between the medical and the ocular evidence coupled with severe contradictions in the oral evidence, clear latches in investigation, then the benefit of doubt has to go to the accused[3].
A medical witness who performs a post-mortem examination is a witness of fact though he also gives an opinion on certain aspects of the case. The value of a 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. From the evidence on record, inferences are drawn as to the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case in criminal matters and truth or otherwise of a claim in civil matters. In this process, the medical evidence plays a very crucial role. If there is inconsistency or discrepancy between the medical evidence and the direct evidence or between medical evidence of two doctors, one of whom examined the injured person and the other conducted post mortem on the injured person after his death or as to the injuries, then in criminal cases, the accused is given the benefit of doubt, and let off[4].
Medical evidence is only an evidence of opinion and it is not conclusion and when oral evidence is found to the inconsistent with the medical opinion, the ocular evidence has to be given importance[5]. The position of law in such a case of contradiction between medical and ocular evidence can be crystallized to the effect that even the ocular testimony of witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved[6].
Supreme Court held that for the proposition that where the direct evidence was not supported by the expert evidence, it would be difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence and also held that prosecution story was doubtful because there was clear inconsistency between medical evidence and ocular evidence[7].
But Supreme Court also cautioned that though the ocular testimony of witness has greater evidentiary value vis-vis medical evidence when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence maybe disbelieved[8].
The real test of credibility of Tatoba’s version was the medical evidence. If his version was corroborated by the medical evidence there could be no ground to discard his sole evidence just because he happened to be a brother of the deceased. On the other hand, if medical evidence contradicted the version of Tatoba, it was evident that the prosecution case would not succeed[9].
Medical science is a difficult one. 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 therein lies within the domain of the court. The evidence of an expert should, however, be interpreted like any other evidence[10].
A medical witness who performs a post-mortem examination is a witness of fact though he also gives an opinion on certain aspects of the case. The value of a 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. From the evidence on record, inferences are drawn as to the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case in criminal matters and truth or otherwise of a claim in civil matters. In this process, the medical evidence plays a very crucial role. If there is inconsistency or discrepancy between the medical evidence and the direct evidence or between medical evidence of two doctors, one of whom examined the injured person and the other conducted post mortem on the injured person after his death or as to the injuries, then in criminal cases, the accused is given the benefit of doubt, and let off[11].
[1] BASO PRASAD AND OTHERS vs STATE OF BIHAR – (2006) 12 SCALE 354=(2006) 13 SCC 65=(2007) 2 SCC(Cri) 567=(2007) 1 Supreme 31.
[2] Mallikarjun and others vs. Staet of Karnataka – Crl.Apl No:1066 OF 2009 – 08.08.2019
[3] Krishnegowda & Others Versus State of Karnataka By Arkalgud Police – Criminal Appeal Nos. 635 of 2006, 1067 of 2006 – 28-03-2017
[4] SANJAY KHANDERAO WADANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – (2017) 8 Scale 479.
[5] (2008)2 MLJ (SC) 691 Mahmood & ors vs. State of U.P
[6] Abdul Sayeed vs. State of M.P – 2010(10) SCC 259; reiterated in Bajan Singh @ Harbajan Singh & others vs. State of Haryana – 2011 (2) MWN (Cri) 444 (SC).
[7] Mani Ram v. State of U.P – 1994 Supp(2) SCC 289=1994 SCC (Cri) 1242; State of Punjab v. Rajinder Singh – (2009)15 SCC 612 relied in Sayed Darain Ahsan V. State of W.B – 2012 (2) Supreme 571
[8] (2010) 10 SCC 259 – Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P
[9] Shamu Balu Chaugule v. State of Maharashtra –AIR 1976 SC 557=(1976)1 SCC 438=1976 Cr.L.J 492 (SC)
[10] Malay Kumar Ganguly vs. Dr.Sukumar Mukherjee and others – AIR 2009 SC 1162=JT 2009 (10) SC 256=2009(10) SCALE 673=(2009)9 SCC 221=(2010) SCC (Cri) 299=(2009)13 SCR 1
[11] SANJAY KHANDERAO WADANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA – (2017) 8 Scale 479=AIR 2017 SC 3595=2017 (7) JT 503.
