Can doctors avoid giving definite opinion in autopsy reports? MP HC weighs in
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently expressed concern over the fact that in cases of death by asphyxia, burn cases, and accidents, the doctors avoid giving an opinion in the autopsy reports.
Noting that the purpose of an expert opinion from a doctor is to help throw light on the case by giving definite opinion, the HC bench comprising Justices Vivek Agarwal and A K Singh issued directions to the Director General of Police, Bhopal and the Principal Secretary of Health, Bhopal to take necessary steps so that medical evidence in such type of cases are quickly and scientifically collected to help the expert postmortem doctor give a clear cut opinion.
"As in this case and in many other case it is being continuously seen that in case of death by asphyxia and in burnt cases and accidents doctors avoid giving opinion, whether the death was accidental, homicidal or suicidal. In fact to our understanding the purpose of an expert opinion like doctor in case of death is to throw expert witnesses light on the case by giving definite opinion and if at the time of preparing postmortem report certain evidence collected by police during investigation was not available with them then it is the duty of Investigation Officer to submit those additional evidence and seek a clear cut opinion from the postmortem doctor but that was not done in this case," observed the High Court bench.
These observations were made by the High Court bench while acquitting a woman's husband and his brother, who were sentenced to life by the trial court for allegedly immolating the woman in Sagar district's Banda in 2013.
When the trial court's order was challenged before the High Court, the bench noted that the order could not be sustained considering the anomalies in the autopsy report.
After the woman was brought to the Community Health Centre, Banda, in a burnt state, she gave three dying declarations. The first one was given to a doctor, and the deceased had said that she had been set on fire by her husband, brother-in-law and father-in-law by pouring kerosene on her. In her second dying declaration, recorded by the sub-inspector, she reiterated the same facts.
Based on these two declarations, an FIR was registered, the investigations commenced, and the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. However, the appellant claimed that in the third dying declaration given to the Naib Tahsildar, the deceased had stated that she was burnt while cooking and nothing was said against the appellant.
While considering the matter, the HC bench took note of the discrepancies in the postmortem report and said that while no opinion was given in the report whether the death was suicidal or homicidal, in the cross-examination, the doctor accepted that since there was no injury on the body, the incident could have been suicidal also.
"In fact prosecution should have re-examined this witness because Dr. *** was making a statement that death could be suicidal even when the team of three doctors did not give any such opinion but as per criminal law this statement of Dr. *** that death could be suicidal cannot be ignored by this Court," noted the High Court.
Accordingly, the HC bench set aside the trial court's order, noting, "It is also the considered view of this Court that learned trial Court should not only see the statement of prosecution witness such as doctor but should tally it with the postmortem report and see for himself whether the statement of doctor tallies with his report. Doctor is not allowed to improve or change his statement or give different statement which does not tally with written document in favour of prosecution in criminal trial in which the case has to be proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt because even otherwise any ambiguity in prosecution evidence will favour the accused."
"Therefore, for the various reasons set out in this judgment from paragraph 12 to paragraph 18 of this judgment we find that conviction of appellants/accused persons cannot be sustained. Therefore, appeal is allowed and judgment of conviction dated 30/07/2019 is set aside. If accused persons are in jail then they may be released from custody if not wanted in any other case," ordered the HC bench.
Further noting that the doctors avoid giving a definite opinion in the autopsy report, the Court clarified that it is the duty of the Investigation Officer to submit additional evidence and seek a clear-cut opinion from the postmortem doctor.
"Let a copy of this judgment be sent to Director General of Police, Bhopal and Principal Secretary Health, Bhopal to take necessary steps so that investigation and medical evidence in such type of cases is quickly and scientifically collected in the light of observation by this Court in paragraph 16 of judgment," the Court directed.
To view the order, click on the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/07/07/mp-hc-autopsy-report-358216.pdf
