If Doctor Who Held Autopsy Died, Is Certificate Issued By Him Admissible As Evidence? Telangana High Court Explains
The Telangana High Court held that if the original examiner is unavailable, a postmortem report is admissible under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act, if another doctor verifies their handwriting and signature.
The Telangana High Court observed that if the Doctor who held autopsy is dead or is not available for examination, the certificate issued by him is relevant and admissible under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act.
In a criminal revision petition, the Petitioner contended that the postmortem report was inadmissible as evidence since the doctor who conducted it had not been examined. However, the Telangana High Court rejected this claim and stated that if the original examiner was unavailable, any other doctor familiar with their handwriting and signature could validate the report. As per Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act, 1872 ('Evidence Act') such evidence was admissible, and therefore, required no interference by the Court under its revisional jurisdiction.
A Single Bench of Justice E.V. Venugopal observed, “The normal rule is that a post-mortem certificate being a document containing the previous statement of a Doctor who examined the dead body can be used only to corroborate the statement under Section 147 or to contradict the statement under Section 145 or to refresh his memory under Section 159 of the Evidence Act. But the provision of Section 32 of the Evidence Act is an exception to this rule. If the Doctor who held autopsy is dead or is not available for examination, the certificate issued by him is relevant and admissible under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act”
The Petitioner was represented by Advocate L.Harish, whereas the Public Prosecutor represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The brief facts leading to the filing of the revision petition are that accused no.1, the Petitioner herein, along with the co-accused, assaulted the victim and his wife over objections to a bullock cart passing through agricultural fields. While the victim and his wife were returning home, they were attacked, and the victim was pushed to the ground and trampled, eventually succumbing to his injuries at the hospital. The Assistant Sessions Judge convicted all the accused persons under Sections 304-II and 323 of the IPC, sentencing them to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, while acquitting them of offences under Section 504 IPC. Upon appeal, the Additional District and Sessions Judge acquitted accused nos. 2 and 3 under Section 304-II IPC but upheld their conviction under Section 323 IPC, while confirming the petitioner’s conviction and sentence on both counts.
Hence, the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner before this Court.
Contentions
The Petitioner argued that since the Appellate Court had found no intention or knowledge on the part of accused nos. 2 and 3 that their actions could cause the victim’s death and subsequently acquitted them, the Petitioner should have been granted the same benefit. He further averred that the doctor who had conducted the postmortem examination had not been examined, resulting in the postmortem report not being proved. Additionally, he contended that Trial Courts had failed to recognize that the abrasion on the deceased’s abdomen had no corresponding internal injury. He further contended that the prosecution had suppressed the statement under Section 161 of the CrPC wherein it was mentioned that the deceased had sustained injuries due to a fall in his agricultural well.
The Respondent on the other hand contended that both the Trial Courts had rightly appreciated evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, and that no interference was warranted in the present criminal revision case.
Reasoning
Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the doctor who conducted the postmortem examination over the deceased was not examined and hence the postmortem examination report was not proved is concerned, the court was of the view that the said contention also holds no ground since it is well established that when the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the deceased was not available and some other doctor who knows and identifies the handwriting and signature of the doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead body, it can be safely concluded that the postmortem examination is proved.
The Court stated, “..this court is of the view that the said contention also holds no ground since it is well established that when the doctor who conducted autopsy over the deceased was not available and some other doctor who knows and identifies the handwriting and signature of the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, it can be safely concluded that the postmortem examination is proved. No doubt, it was the duty of the prosecution to examine the autopsy surgeon and to prove the postmortem report since it is a case of death. A postmortem report cannot be treated as a report of Government Scientific expert as contemplated in Section 293 of Cr.P.C. However, for fair ends of justice I have a glimpse to the postmortem report which is already on record and I find nothing to observe that had the autopsy surgeon was examined the case would have been otherwise than that what is concluded by the Courts below.”
Dealing with the contention of the petitioner that the deceased had previously sustained injuries from a fall in an agricultural well, the Court said it was not acceptable, as the deceased’s family members categorically denied this claim, and there was no mention of it in any other form. The Court further stated that even if this contention were to be accepted, Explanation (1) to Section 299 of the IPC stated that a person who causes bodily injury to another already suffering from a disorder, disease, or bodily infirmity, thereby accelerating their death, shall be deemed to have caused their death.
The Bench held, “For the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Both the courts below have concurrently found the petitioner guilty of the said offence and hence the findings arrived at by the courts below do not warrant interference of this court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC.”
Taking note of the fact that the offence had been committed in the year 2002 and that the petitioner had already undergone incarceration, the Court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of five years to the period already undergone by the petitioner, while enhancing the fine amount to Rs. 2,00,000/-.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition.
Cause Title: Criminal Revision Case No.315 OF 2011
Click here to read/download Order
