No need to examine doctor if genuineness of postmortem report is unchallenged: Orissa HC

The Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash further ruled, while elucidating the mandate of the provision under Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that when the accused acknowledges the report's authenticity, it can be treated as substantive evidence.

The case in question involved an appeal by the accused who had been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for the murder of an individual. The prosecution's case asserted that the accused had seen his wife in the company of the deceased and, in a fit of rage, assaulted his wife and fatally injured the deceased.

The Court first examined whether it was mandatory to have the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination testify as a prosecution witness. It was noted that the doctor had not been examined in the trial court. However, the trial court records revealed that the State Defense Counsel representing the accused had filed a memorandum admitting the post-mortem report. Consequently, the trial court admitted the report as an exhibit and waived the need for the doctor's testimony.

The Orissa High Court clarified that Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) allows the accused to forgo the formal proof of documents such as the post-mortem report by admitting its authenticity or not disputing its genuineness when required under sub-section (1) of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. In such a situation, sub-section (3) of Section 294 of Cr.P.C. allows the court to accept the report as evidence without requiring it to be proven in accordance with the Evidence Act. It noted;

"A post mortem report of which genuineness is not disputed by the accused can be read as substantive evidence without formal proof. Sub-section (2) of section 294 of Cr.P.C. covers the post mortem report. Section 294 of Cr.P.C. makes dispensation of formal proof dependent on the accused or the prosecutor not disputing the genuineness of the documents sought to be used against them."

The Court highlighted that a post-mortem report, if its genuineness is uncontested by the accused, can be treated as substantive evidence without the need for formal proof. This provision makes the dispensation of formal proof contingent on whether the accused or the prosecutor disputes the authenticity of the documents intended to be used against them. It observed;

"In view of section 58 of the Evidence Act and section 294 of Cr.P.C., once the genuineness of a document filed by the prosecution or the accused is not disputed by the other side, such document may be read as substantive evidence."

The Court further clarified that the post-mortem report filed by the prosecution qualifies as a 'document' under the scope of Section 29 of the IPC and Section 294(1) of the Cr.P.C. If the report's authenticity is not disputed, it can be admitted as genuine evidence.

In addition to the post-mortem report, the Court examined other pieces of evidence, which strongly indicated that the deceased's death was a result of a homicidal act. This included the testimony of the deceased's mother, who witnessed the incident, and the recovery of the weapon used in the offense based on the appellant's statement. Taking all this into account, the Court concluded that the appellant was indeed responsible for the crime.

However, the Court acknowledged that the appellant had been provoked by discovering his wife with the deceased, and the offense was not premeditated. Therefore, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 of the IPC (murder) to Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). Given that the appellant had already spent over five years in imprisonment, the Court sentenced him to the period he had already served.

To view the original judgement, click on the link below: