Adya Singh vs State Of Bihar
- SCC(1998) 6 SCC 439
- AIRAIR 1998 SC 3011
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where medical evidence (post-mortem findings) is inconsistent with eyewitness evidence as to the direction from which a fatal shot was fired, the inconsistency does not render the eyewitness evidence unreliable or inadmissible if the medical evidence itself is shown to be potentially compromised by circumstances suggesting bias or error on the part of the medical examiner — such as the doctor's later admission that the post-mortem report was prepared in the office from destroyed notes, combined with circumstances suggesting a motive to assist the accused — whereas the eyewitness evidence is clear, consistent, and unchallenged in cross-examination. Where a doctor who first examined a deceased person has, both in his evidence and contemporaneously in an official Injury Certificate issued immediately after examination, consistently described the location and direction of entry and exit wounds, and nothing in cross-examination creates doubt as to the correctness of that evidence, such medical evidence is reliable and may be accepted notwithstanding inconsistency with later post-mortem findings.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
J U D G M E N T The appellant is challenging in this appeal his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act recorded by Sessions Court, Patna in Sessions Case No.86 of 1976 and confirmed by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.57 of 1976.
Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the evidence of eye-witnesses who have said that the deceased was hit on his back by the shot fired by the appellant. But P.W.5 - Doctor Kalwar, who had performed post-mortem examination has deposed that entry wound was on the chest and the exit wound was on the back. Learned counsel submitted that the medical evidence clearly establishes that the assailant had fired a shot when the deceased was facing him and not when his back was towards the assailant, was deposed by the eye-witnesses. He submitted that is view of this inconsistency, the courts below ought not to have accepted their evidence.
This aspect was considered by the trial court and also by the High Court and they have rightly rejected the contention same. The Doctor, who performed the post-mortem examination, as admitted that he had prepared the post- mortem report subsequently in his office on the basis of notes which he had prepared earlier and which were destroyed thereafter. He also admitted that the appellant was working as a compounder in a Government hospital. That explains the reason why there is an inconsistency in the evidence of Dr. kalwar and of Dr. Singh, who first examined deceased Mahinder Singh, P.W. 6- Dr. Singh not only in his evidence but also in the Injury Certificate which he had issued soon after examining Mahinder Singh has described the wound on the back as an entry wound and the wound on the chest as the exit wound. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination which could create a doubt regarding the correctness of his evidence. An attempt by the Doctor who had performed post- mortem examination to help the appellant is quite evidence. This cannot be regarded as a case in which because of inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, the evidence of eye-witnesses should have been rejected.
We see no reason to differ from the findings recorded by the High Court. The evidence of eye-witnesses clearly establishes that the appellant had caused the death of Mahinder Singh by firing a gun.
This appeal is, therefore, dismissed. The appellant's bail is cancelled an he is ordered to surrender to custody to serve out the remaining sentence.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free