INTRODUCTION

The victims of criminal offences seek justice through the Courts by filing criminal cases for
awarding punishment to the offenders. The state is required to prove the guilt of the offenders
by producing adequate evidences before the court. Evidence is given by the expert of the
relevant field in the form of his opinion which is based on the information that he has gathered
from the facts of the case. However, the evidentiary value of the opinion given by the expert is
not steadfast because of the discretionary power available to the Court, which may choose to
accept or reject it. Medical evidences and scientific techniques are also used by investigating
agencies to prove the guilt of the accused. In view of current scientific developments, the
medical and scientific evidences can play a major role in identifying the accused and proving
his guilt. These evidences are mainly considered as a corroborative piece of evidence .The
interaction between Medicine and the Law has played the main role in the recent years. Medical
science gives clue as to how the death of the person, how the injury, was caused, while the law
prosecutes a person for killing and injuring other. Although the substantive evidence case is
that of the eyewitnesses who seen the incident, expert evidence has corroborative value 1

Medical Evidence

The expression “medical evidence” compendiously refers to the facts stated by the doctor either
in the injury report or in the post mortem report or during his oral testimony plus the opinion
expressed by the doctor on the basis of the facts stated. 2

Medical and scientific expert witnesses are those who are admitted to testify from a peculiar
knowledge of science i.e. forensic science, to give their opinion in evidence. The expression
“evidence” means “oral or documentary or circumstantial proof of the allegations in issue
between the parties in a legal proceeding”. “Medical evidence” means a proof given by medical
expert, which is based on his scientific knowledge skill and personal experience.3

1 A,Arya R, “A research paper on role of medical evidence in India -a critical study” IJAPM Vol. 120 No. 5
2018.
2
Bastiram V. State of Rajasthan, 2014 Cri LJ 1761 P. 1766
3
Tanya Singh, “Importance of Medical and scientific evidences in criminal cases”, IJAR 2015; 1(9): 964-967
In a criminal trial, in order to zero down on the relevant facts, the judge has to rely on the
knowledge and opinion of certain experts as he may not be in a position to appreciate the
technical details involved in a particular case. Evidence is given by the expert of the relevant
field in the form of his opinion which is based on the information that he has gathered from the
facts of the case. This evidence supplements the assertions of the judge and, together, they
complement each other and combine to form the basis of the judgment.4

Importance of Medical Evidence

Medical knowledge is a specialized form of knowledge. A layman may not be in a position to

have medical knowledge without proper education and training. The knowledge of the medical
expert is always essential in the criminal justice system. The expert evidence given by a medical
person comes to the help of the Court in deciding various matters. Particularly, in case of death
of a person, medical evidence is inevitable. Such evidence can be obtained through post-
mortem report. The importance of the post-mortem report is as a tool in the hands of the
prosecution. It becomes useful to decide the guilt of the accused. 5

Medical evidences in India are used by investigating agencies to prove the guilt of the accused.
The medical and scientific evidences can play a major role in identifying the accused and
proving his guilt. These evidences are mainly corroborative pieces of evidences. The
expression “evidence” means “oral or documentary or circumstantial proof of the allegations
in issue between the parties in a legal proceeding”. “Medical evidence” means a proof given
by medical expert, which is based on his scientific knowledge skill and personal experience.
The knowledge of the medical expert is always essential in the criminal justice system. The
expert evidence given by a medical person comes to the help of the Court in deciding various
matters. Particularly, in case of certain offences against a women or death of a person, medical
evidence is inevitable. The medical evidence adduced by prosecution has great corroborative
value.6

4 Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of the law of Evidence 384, ( Central Law Publications, Allahabad 22nd Ed. 2018)
5
https://shodhgangotri.inflibnet.ac.in (Visited on Nov 1, 2019 )
6
https://acadpubl.eu (Visited on Nov 1, 2019 )
In a trial where injury or death is involved, or for an offence of causing hurt to a human body,
the opinion of medical man is sought for ascertaining the cause of death or injury or to
determine as to the injuries are anti-mortem or post-mortem, probable weapon used, the

effect of injuries, medicines, poisons, the effect and consequence of wound whether they are
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course, the duration of injuries and the probable time
of death. In the same way while the offence or trial of kidnapping and rape the medical opinion
is adduced to establish the fact that the girl is minor, whether rape was committed under
influence of liquor, medicine or intoxicant, threat by using weapon, to extent injury on private
part of prosecutrix and that of accused, or if death is caused by excessive force used by the
accused to the minor child etc.7

Opinions of a medical officer, physician or surgeon may be admitted in evidence to show8--

a) Physical condition of the a person,
b) Age of a person
c) Cause of death of a person
d) Nature and effect of the disease or injuries on body or mind
e) Manner or instrument by which such injuries was caused
f) Time at which the injury or wounds have been caused.
g) Whether the injury or wounds are fatal in nature
h) Cause, symptoms and peculiarities of the disease and whether it is likely to cause death
i) Probable future consequences of an injury etc.

MEDICAL EXPERT

Sec 45 of Indian evidence Act, 1872 states that, “When the Court has to form an opinion upon
a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identify of handwriting or finger impressions,
the opinions upon that point of persons especially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or

7
HWV cox and Jhala and Raju, Medical Jurispudences, Eev Act S.45
8 Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of the law of Evidence 388, ( Central Law Publications, Allahabad 22nd Ed. 2018)
in questions as to identify of handwriting or finger impressions, are relevant facts.” Such
persons are called experts.

The careful reading of the section gives us a vague idea about who is an expert, by the words
–the persons especially skilled. There is no clear mention about qualifications, experience or
any particular attainment. But especially skilled means there must be something to show that
the expert is skilled and has an adequate knowledge of the subject. 9

An expert is a person who is instructed by experience is called “expert”. Witnesses are

ordinarily not to say what they thought or believed to be and therefore their opinions are
irrelevant in a judicial enquiry, but in certain special matters requiring special skill in the
subject concerned, opinions of persons having special study, training or experience are
accepted as evidence. Expert evidence in a criminal trial would be just a fraction of the totality
of the evidence on the appreciation of which the judge takes decision.10

Section 45 of the Evidence Act which makes opinion of experts admissible lays down that
when the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as
to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons
specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identify of handwriting,
or finger impressions are relevant facts. Therefore, in order to bring the evidence of a witness
as that of an expert it has to be shown that he has made a special study of the subject or acquired
a special experience therein or in other words that he is skilled and has adequate knowledge of
the subject. An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character.
The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for
testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the judge to form his independent
judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. 11

Before expert testimony can be admitted two things must be proved, namely

1. The subject is such that expert testimony is necessary.

9
Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of the law of Evidence, 380 ( Central Law Publications, Allahabad 22nd Ed. 2018)
10
S.P.Thyagi, “Law of evidence‟ p.213 ( Vinod publications, Delhi, 2006)
11 State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Jai Lal and Ors. AIR 1999 SC 3318
 2. That the witness in question is really an expert and that he is a truthful witness. 12

DUTY OF THE EXPERT

a) An expert is not a witness of fact.
b) His evidence is of advisory character.
c) An expert deposes and does not decide.
d) An expert witness is to furnish the judge necessary scientific criteria for testing the
accuracy of the conclusion so as to enable the judge to form his independent judgment by
application of the criteria to the facts proved by the evidence. 13

VALUE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE

Ordinarily medical evidence is corroborative evidence. Medical evidence alone will not
convince the Court beyond reasonable doubt that a particular person is guilty of a crime. Where
the medical evidence describes the injuries and the same corroborated, the former can be relied
upon - This was clearly summed up by Justice Monir (as he then was) in his principles and
Digest of the Law of Evidence where he states that ‘when a medical person is called as an
expert, he is not to witness the facts, because his evidence is not direct evidence of how an
injury in question was done. He gives his opinion only on how that, in all probability was
caused. The value of such evidence lies only to the extent it supports and lends weight to direct
evidence of eye-witnesses or contradicts evidence and removes the possibility of the injury in
question and could take the manner alleged by the witness.14

In the case Pratap Mishra V. State of Orissa 15according to prosecution, the incident of rape
took place and the prosecutrix was produced before the doctor on next day i.e. about 18 to 19
hours after the incident. Thus, the possibility that the sexual intercourse may have been
examined with the prosecutrix even before 24 hours but more than 18 to 19 hours before she
was produced before the doctor cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is evident that the doctor who

12 Kanchan Singh V. State of Gujarat, AIR 1979 SC 1011

13 http://www.legalservicesindia.com ( Visited on Nov 1, 2019)
14 https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in ( Visited on Nov 1, 2019)
15 AIR 1977 SC 1307
has examined the victim is in a best position of depose about the medico legal aspect of the
offence committed on the victim.

Medical evidence is opinion evidence. Sometimes it may happen that such an opinion points
out total improbability of a certain event and at the same time direct evidence is showing that
the event actually happened. Now, as per the general rule, direct evidence is always admissible
this rule will not be made applicable Direct evidence may be discarded on the basis of opinion
evidence. Where the direct evidence is doubtful and it is improbable because of the expert
evidence then also the Court may not accept the both. It means that the expert evidence though
valuable, though scientifically proved to be correct, it always should go hand in hand with other
type of evidence.16

It has been observed in Milkiyat Singh V. State of Rajasthan 17as follows – “In this state of
evidence, specially the medical evidence, it is difficult to hold with any certainty that the
occurrence had taken place in the way the prosecution witnesses allege. From the medical
evidence it is difficult to reach a firm conclusion that the defense version is altogether false. In
these circumstances, Court does not find it safe to maintain the conviction of the appellants.
The court, allow the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellants and the sentences passed
on them and acquitted them of the charges framed against them; they are on bail, the bail bonds
furnished by them are discharged.

In Awadhesh v. State of M.P18. again their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: “Medical
expert’s opinion is not always final and binding.”

The expert evidence given by a medical person comes to the help of the Court in deciding
various matters. Particularly, in case of death of a person, medical evidence is inevitable.
Ordinarily medical evidence is corroborative evidence. Expert evidence alone will not
convince the Court beyond reasonable doubt that a particular person is guilty of a crime. when
a medical person is called as an expert, he is not to witness the facts, because his evidence is
not direct evidence of how an injury in question was done. He gives his opinion only on how
that, in all probability was caused. The value of such evidence lies only to the extent it supports

16 Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of the law of Evidence, 386 ( Central Law Publications, Allahabad 22nd Ed. 2018)
17 AIR 1981 SC 1579
18 AIR 1988 SC 1158
and lends weight to direct evidence of eye-witnesses or contradicts evidence and removes the
possibility of the injury in question and could take the manner alleged by the witness.19

Expert evidence ought to be approached with care and caution. An expert witness, however,
fair minded is naturally biased in favor of the party who calls him. He is often called by one
side simply and solely because it has been determined that he holds view ideal to his interest. 20

Medical evidence isn’t direct, and, therefore, value of such an evidence lies only on the extent
to which it supports and lends weight to the direct evidence of eye-witnesses or contracts that
evidence and removes the possibility that the injury could take place in the manner alleged by
those witnesses. The opinion of a doctor is entitled to great weight but may be discarded on
good grounds.21

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat,
22
observed:-"Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the
injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use, which the
defence can make of the medical evidence, is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have
been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eyewitnesses. Unless, however,
the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities
whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eye witnesses, the testimony of
the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and
the medical evidence.

A medical witness who performs a post-mortem examination of examination of the injuries is

also 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, is also
independent testimony because it may establish certain facts quite apart from the other oral
evidence. If a person is shot at the close range, the mark of tattooing found by the medical
witness would draw that the range was small, quite apart from any other opinion of his.
Similarly, fractures of bones, depth and size of the wound would show the nature of the weapon

19A,Arya R, “A research paper on role of medical evidence in India -a critical study” IJAPM Vol. 120 No. 5
2018.

20 Divan Singh v. Emperor 43 Cr. LJ 5658

21
Nagindra Bala v. Sunil 1960 Cr LJ 1020 (SC)
22
AIR 1983 SC 484: 1983 Cr. L. 822)
used. It is wrong to say that It is only opinion evidence, It is often direct evidence of the facts
found upon the victim's person.23

The medical evidence is usually opinion evidence. The medical opinion by itself, however,
does not prove or disprove the prosecution case, it is merely of advisory character. 24

In Mayur v. State of Gujarat25. their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed: "Even where
a doctor has deposed in Court, his evidence has got to be appreciated like the evidence of any
other witness and there is no irrebuttable presumption that a doctor is always a witness of truth.
"

ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT OPINION:-

Expert opinion becomes admissible only when the expert is examined as a witness in the
court. The report of an expert is not admissible unless the expert gives reasons for forming
the opinion and his evidence is tested by cross-examination by the adverse party. But in order
to curtail the delay and expenses involved in securing assistance of experts, the law has
dispensed with examination of some scientific experts.

For example, Sec.293 Cr.P.C. provides a list of some Govt. Scientific Experts as following:-
a) Any Chemical Examiner / Asstt. Chemical examiner to the Govt.
b) The Chief Controller of explosives
c) The Director of Fingerprint Bureau
d) The Director of Haffkein Institute, Bombay
e) The Director, Dy. Director or Asstt. Director of Central and State Forensic Science
Laboratory.
f) The Serologist to the Govt.
g) Any other Govt. Scientific Experts specified by notification of the Central Govt.

23
Smt. Majindra Bala Mehra v. Sunil Chandra Roy, AIR 1960 SC 706.
24 Duraipandi Thevar v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 659: 1973 Cr. L.J. 602
25 AIR 1983 SC 5: 1982 Cr.L.J. 1972)
The report of any of the above Govt. Scientific Experts is admissible in evidence in any
inquiry, trial or other proceeding and the court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any
of these experts. But his personal appearance in the court for examination as witnesses may
be exempted unless the court expressly directs him to appear personally. He may depute any
responsible officer to attend the court who is working with him and conversant with the facts
of the case and can depose in the court satisfactorily on his behalf. 26

According to S. 294 of Criminal Procedure Code, where the genuineness is not disputed, such
document may be read in evidence. It means that it is not necessary to examine the witness to
prove the contents of the documents and so in this case the report of the Inspector is admissible.
S. 293 of Criminal Procedure Code expressly mentions categories of persons who have to be
present in the court with their report and must be examined. But, otherwise it is the discretion
of the Court to summon the expert or not. It means that medical witnesses report cannot be
discarded on the basis of non-examination of the medical witness.27

In Phool Kumar V. Delhi Administration28, Supreme Court particularly stated that the accused
to file an application for summoning and examining the expert if he wants to challenge the
report on the granting of the application, the court can summon the expert. If the application
has not been filed by the accused, the accused cannot take the objection, that the report of the
expert is being used without his examination in the court. Generally, the doctor who gives post-
mortem report is taken as a witness. But sometimes there is a possibility that the doctor who
had conducted autopsy over dead body was not examined. Here, the court as evidence is
accepted or discarded is dependent decides the admissibility of such report.

In Debi Prasad Panda V. State of Orissa29, the doctor giving the report was not examined.
Summons was issued & letters were sent to authorities to procure his attendance; but he never
attended the court. With the consent of the advocate of both the parties post-mortem report was
marked as exhibit. It was held by the Court that as no prejudice had been caused to the accused,
post mortem report was admissible as evidence.

26 http://www.legalservicesindia.com ( Visited on Nov 1, 2019)

27 https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in ( Visited on Nov 1, 2019)
28 AIR 1975 SC 128
29 2003 Cri. L. J. 105 (Ori)
Difference between evidence of an expert and evidence of an ordinary witness:-

Evidence of an expert Evidence of an ordinary witness

1. Expert gives his opinion regarding 1. An ordinary witness states the fact
handwriting, finger impression, nature of relating to the incident.
injury etc.
2. It is advisory in character. 2. Witness states the facts. Opinion of a
witness is not admissible.
3. Court can’t pass an order of conviction on 3. Court may pass an order of conviction on
the basis of expert opinion, as because it is not the basis of evidence of ocular witness (eye
conclusive. witness).

4. Expert gives his opinion on the basis of 4. A witness gives actual facts connected
his experience, special knowledge or skill in with the incident what he had seen or heard or
the field. perceived.

CONCLUSION

In India medical evidence can be taken as a corroborative value of evidence, which is conferred
from Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The medical evidence is regarded as opinion evidence plays
an important and indispensable part of the evidence, particularly in cases of offences committed
against women. Expert evidence is inevitable in criminal cases and accordingly the
Government has established laboratories in the country and other institutions in the country are
offering scientific service in the administration of criminal justice. Thus the researcher can
finally conclude that in order to provide fair justice. Evidence and witnesses are very necessary
and they hold a very important place in the Law. With the help of Evidence the judge reaches
a decision. The evidence heard by the court is the most important factor in determining whether
the judgment will be in favour of Prosecution side or Defense side.
 REFERENCES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Dr. Avtar Singh, Principles of the law of Evidence, ( Central Law Publications,
Allahabad 22nd Ed. 2018)
2. S.P.Thyagi, “Law of evidence” ( Vinod publications, Delhi, 2006)
3. HWV cox and Jhala and Raju, Medical Jurispudences,

WEBLIOGRAPHY
1. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in
2. http://www.legalservicesindia.com
3. https://acadpubl.eu

RESEARCH PAPERS

1. A,Arya R, “A research paper on role of medical evidence in India -a critical study”

IJAPM Vol. 120 No. 5 2018.
2. Tanya Singh, “Importance of Medical and scientific evidences in criminal cases”,
IJAR 2015; 1(9): 964-967