What happens to postmortem report if Doctor who conducted autopsy dies? Here's what HC said

A Single Bench of Justice E.V. Venugopal emphasized that such reports are relevant and admissible under Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provided that another medical expert familiar with the original doctor's handwriting and signature can authenticate the document.

The case stemmed from the 2002 death of Upparapally Chinna Jangi Reddy, who succumbed to injuries following an alleged assault in Kodparthy village, Thimmajipet Mandal. A case was registered by the Jadcherla Police under Sections 302 (murder), 504 (intentional insult), and 323 (causing hurt) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. The accused was later convicted under Section 304 Part II (culpable homicide not amounting to murder).

The defence challenged the conviction, arguing that the deceased had sustained injuries 15 days prior due to a fall in a well, and questioned the admissibility of the postmortem report, as the doctor who conducted the autopsy was not examined in court.

However, the Telangana High Court dismissed these arguments, holding that the postmortem report was validly verified through the testimony of P.W.16, a medical expert, who confirmed the cause of death as septicemia shock due to intestinal and kidney injuries.

The court further emphasized that even if the deceased had pre-existing medical conditions, the injury caused during the assault accelerated death, making the accused liable for culpable homicide. It noted, "Even if the deceased was suffering from a disorder or pre-existing condition, as per Explanation (1) to Section 299 IPC, if the injury caused accelerates death, the accused shall be deemed to have caused death."

The Telangana High Court stressed that under normal circumstances, a postmortem report can only be used to corroborate or contradict statements made under Sections 147 and 145 of the Evidence Act. However, Section 32(2) provides an exception, allowing the report to be considered as admissible evidence even in the absence of the certifying doctor. It observed;

"The normal rule is that a post-mortem certificate... can be used only to corroborate the statement under Section 147 or to contradict the statement under Section 145 or to refresh his memory under Section 159 of the Evidence Act. But the provision of Section 32 of the Evidence Act is an exception to this rule. If the Doctor who held autopsy is dead or is not available for examination, the certificate issued by him is relevant and admissible under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act."

While upholding the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, the Telangana High Court modified the sentence, taking into account the prolonged 23-year litigation. The original five-year imprisonment was reduced to the period already served, recognizing the extensive duration of legal proceedings. However, the fine was increased to Rs 2,00,000, payable to the deceased’s legal heirs. It held, “Since the offence was committed in 2002 and the petitioner has been contesting the case for over two decades, the sentence is modified to the period already undergone. However, the fine is enhanced to Rs 2,00,000, failing which the petitioner shall undergo one year of simple imprisonment.”