Personal Examination of Doctor who prepared Medical Legal Case Report is not mandatory: Delhi HC

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has recently stated that it is not mandatory to conduct personal examination of the doctor who prepared a medico legal case (MLC) report for relying upon it if the record is proved by any other doctor of the hospital.

Expressing this opinion, the HC division bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar recently upheld the life imprisonment of an accused convicted for raping a 2 year old minor girl. 

The bench opined that a colleague doctor or any administrative staff of the hospital, who can identify the handwriting and signatures of the doctor who had prepared the report after examining the patient, can prove the authenticity of a MLC report and such reports cannot be doubted.

“It cannot be expected from the hospital to keep track of the doctor after he leaves the hospital. Neither the doctor is expected to keep the hospital informed about his /her whereabouts. Merely because the doctor who prepared the MLC is not personally examined, the MLC cannot be disbelieved,” held the bench.

Also Read: Illegible handwriting of Doctors: Allahabad HC directs for PRINTED medico legal reports

The main matter concerned the conviction of the petitioner who had allegedly raped a two years old minor girl. Special Court under POCSO Act had convicted the minor girl under section 376 IPC and had sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay Rs 50,000 as fine.

Challenging the order, the petitioner's counsel had submitted before the HC bench that the Trial Court had entirely based the conviction by placing reliance on the MLC of the victim. Therefore it was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that since the doctor who had prepared the MLC report was not examined, the report was not reliable.

On the other hand, the counsel for State argued that even if the doctor who had prepared the MLC report was not examined, the report could not be discarded. Referring to the medico legal report that does not mention that the hymen was ruptured, the counsel for the petitioner argued that rupture of hymen is not necessary in each and every case and in small children, the hymen is not usually ruptured.

However, the Court rejected the argument by the petitioner's counsel and noted that the concerned doctor had left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known. At this outset, the bench observed, "The MLC is an authenticated record of injuries which is prepared in regular course of business by the doctor and can be relied upon by the Courts, even when the doctor who prepared the MLC is not examined in the Court and record is proved by any of the other doctor. It cannot be expected from the hospital to keep track of the doctor after he leaves the hospital. Neither the doctor is expected to keep the hospital informed about his /her whereabouts."

"Merely because the doctor who prepared the MLC is not personally examined, the MLC cannot be disbelieved. Proving of MLC by a colleague doctor who identifies the handwriting and signatures of the doctor who examined the patient or by an administrative staff of the hospital who identifies the signatures of the doctor is sufficient and good proof and MLC cannot be doubted," further opined the HC bench.

"In the instant case, it is not the case of the appellant that there is tampering with the MLC and no bias has been alleged against the hospital authority or the IO by the appellant. Therefore, the Ld. Trial Court was fully justified on relying upon the MLC Ex. PW 7/A," it also noted.

In this regard, the bench also referred to Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology and several other court orders to opine that rupture of hymen is not required for proving offence of rape. 

Further referring to the unreliability regarding the witness of the mother of the minor child, the bench noted, "The court has enough power to sift the chaff from the grain. In the instant case, one cannot ignore the fact that PW-2 is the mother of a 2 year old minor child who has been violated by the appellant who was seen by PW-2 holding the victim child in his lap and then apologizing for his wrong act. Therefore, in such a situation the mother of the minor child would be tormented and traumatized and then some contradictions are bound to occur in her testimony."

"In view of the discussions hereinabove, we find no reason to not rely upon the testimony of PW 2 mother of the victim and the reliance placed by the Ld. Trial Court on the testimony of PW 2 while arriving at a conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence against the minor child as narrated by PW-2 cannot be faulted with," opined the bench.

"We have already observed that the testimony of PW 2 mother of the victim cannot be faulted with and her testimony finds support from the MLC of the victim Ex. PW 7/A," it added.

Therefore, upholding the judgment by the Trial Court, the HC bench mentioned in the order,

"In view of the discussions mentioned hereinabove, the impugned Judgment dated 31.10.2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is upheld, consequently, the appeal is dismissed. However, the impugned Order on Sentence dated 19.12.2018 passed by the Ld. Trial Court is modified only to the extent that the benefits of Set-Off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the appellant. Remaining part of the impugned Order on Sentence dated 19.12.2018 shall remain the same. All pending applications (if any) are disposed of."

To read the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/medico-legal-report-197131.pdf

Also Read: Punjab Doctor seeks Rs 20,000 bribe for allegedly tampering medico-legal report, arrested