Supreme Court: How to appreciate prosecution evidence if there is material discrepancy in medical evidence regarding time of incident and age of injuries?

Firstly, there is a material discrepancy in the

medical evidence and the deposition of the witnesses

regarding the time of the incident which goes to the

root of the matter affecting the veracity of the

prosecution case. {Para 51}

 52. At the cost of repetition, we may mention that

as per the deposition of the medical jurist (PW-7), the

injuries on the body of the victim were 5-7 days old.

The medical jurist examined the victim on 7th

December, 2016. Hence, the incident could not have

taken place on 5th December, 2016 as alleged in the

FIR and must have taken place at least 2-3 days

earlier. The presence of pus and maggots in the

wound noticed by the doctor on the perianal region of

the victim, is also indicative of the fact that the

injuries were at least 5-7 days old.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 135 OF 2026

DHANRAJ  Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN 

Author: Mehta, J.

Dated: SEPTEMBER 07, 2026.

Citation: 2026 INSC 958.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The benefit of discrepancy between medical evidence and the inquest report should be given to accused

 On this basis the learned trial Judge held that the bruise marks on scapular region and waist of the dead body noted in the Inquest Panchnama by the Investigating Police Officer,“were nothing but the marks of post-mortem stainings”. This view of the evidence taken by the trial court could not be said to be palpably wrong. Nor was the High Court fair enough to the medical officer, Dr Sati Punjabi, inasmuch as it held that she had failed to note some contusion marks mentioned in the Inquest Panchnama, through sheer‘inadvertence or by design’. The Police Officer who prepared the Inquest Panchnama was not an expert in medical jurisprudence. The possibility of his having mistaken the postmortem staining marks on the waist and shoulder of the deceased, for ante-mortem bruises, could not be ruled out. In any case, in such a situation, as a matter of judicial caution, the benefit of this discrepancy between medical evidence and the inquest report, on this point in issue, ought to have been given to the appellants.  {Para 4}

 In the court of Supreme court of India

Maula Bux And Others v. State Of Rajasthan .

Dated: Feb 15, 1980

CASE NO.Criminal Appeal No. 345 of 1974.

Bench: Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy, Justice R.S. Sarkaria

 Citations:1983 SCC 1 379 . 1983 SCC CRI 199 .

Print Page

When Eyes Speak and Science Checks: Ocular vs Medical Evidence in Criminal Trials

 In criminal trials, courts often face a recurring question: what should prevail when eyewitness testimony conflicts with medical evidence? The answer is not mechanical. Indian courts have consistently held that credible ocular evidence ordinarily carries primacy, while medical evidence generally plays a corroborative role. At the same time, when medical evidence completely rules out the prosecution’s eyewitness version and renders it impossible or wholly improbable, the court must approach the ocular version with great caution.

The basic rule

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate prosecution evidence if there is contradiction in evidence of Victim and medical opinion?

The Complainant was specific in the FIR (Exhibit 15) that the respondents No. 1 and 2 assaulted with the axe on his head but used the reverse side of the axe on his right calf. He thus knew the difference between the axe and the reverse side of the axe at the time of immediate filing of the FIR. The Medical Officer-PW7 Dr. Baburao was, however, sure that none of the injuries suffered by PW1 Babu was possible by any sharp edged weapon. The nature of the injuries, as detailed supra, would show that none of the injuries was caused by sharp weapon. {Para 10}

11. PW2 - Siddhu, the son of PW1 Babu deposed that he was one kilometer away from the spot to graze the catties and upon hearing the shout from the field, he reached there i.e. the field and saw the incident. Thus he was to travel for one kilometer on foot and still according to him, he has seen the assault. He has suffered two injuries as detailed supra. Those are swelling and contusion and therefore, possible by fall.

12. Not only this, PW2 Siddhu suddenly brought on record presence of another eye witness Chandu. This was not only the improvement in the prosecution case as is highlighted in his cross-examination but said Chandu was not examined by the prosecution. In the circumstances, when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken reasonable and probable view of the material before him, in the present appeal against acquittal, there is no need to interfere. The appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed. The bail bonds, if any of the present respondents stand cancelled.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 607 of 2003

Decided On: 18.06.2015

The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vasant and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.T. Joshi, J.

Citation: 2015 ALLMR (CRI)3649,MANU/MH/2720/2015.

Print Page

Whether the court can acquit accused due to absence of medical evidence if reliable oral evidence is available in the case?

 It is true that unfortunately there is no medical examination as PW3 father of victim, who was an illiterate person hailing from another District, seems to have left with the victim to reach to his native and on the way, he has realized that she was no more alive. Thereafter, he had performed last rituals. Consequently, there is no supportive medical evidence. However, merely absence of medical evidence, is no good ground to discard the direct and ocular evidence of parents coupled with evidence of an independent witness regarding rape. Law does not make it imperative for prosecution to corroborate its case by adducing medical evidence. When direct evidence inspires confidence, case of prosecution can still be accepted. Here is a case of such nature where parents and independent witness, who have seen the incident, have narrated the occurrence while in witness box. Their testimonies have not been rendered doubtful. Hence, even in absence of medical evidence, case of prosecution can safely said to be inspiring confidence and can be readily accepted. {Para 12}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 673 OF 2002

Bhaulal S/o. Dokraji Reswal Vs  The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 06 MARCH, 2024

Print Page

Supreme Court Judgment on appreciation of evidence if there is discrepancy in Medical Evidence and Ocular Evidence

Medical Evidence v. Ocular Evidence

31. In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath and Ors. MANU/SC/0362/1999 : (1999) 5 SCC 96, it was held as follows:

The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such an opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to go by that opinion. After all opinion is what is formed in the mind of a person regarding a fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts it is open to the Judge to adopt the view which is more objective or probable. Similarly if the opinion given by one doctor is not consistent with probability the court has no liability to go by that opinion merely because it is said by the doctor. Of course, due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject.

[Emphasis added]

32. Drawing on Bhagirath's case (supra.), this Court has held that where the medical evidence is at variance with ocular evidence, it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the "variable" keeping the medical evidence as the "constant". Where the eyewitnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, a medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities can not be accepted as conclusive. The eyewitnesses' account requires a careful independent assessment and evaluation for its credibility, which should not be adversely prejudged on the basis of any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts, the "credit" of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Vide Thaman Kumar v. State of Union Territory of Chandigarh MANU/SC/0386/2003 : (2003) 6 SCC 380; and Krishnan v. State MANU/SC/0505/2003 : (2003) 7 SCC 56).

33. In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0150/1983 : AIR 1983 SC 484, this Court observed,

Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eye-witnesses. Unless, however the medical evidence in its turn goes so far that it completely rules out all possibilities whatsoever of injuries taking place in the manner alleged by eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eye-witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.

35. In State of U.P. v. Hari Chand MANU/SC/0690/2009 : (2009) 13 SCC 542, this Court re-iterated the aforementioned position of law and stated that, "In any event unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy."

36. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence can be crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1243 of 2007

Decided On: 14.09.2010

Abdul Sayeed  Vs.    State of Madhya Pradesh

 Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0702/2010,(2010) 10 SCC 259.

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether court can convict accused with the aid of S 34 of IPC in place of S 149 of IPC even though no charge was framed U/S 34 of IPC?

Effect of Failure to frame proper charges

39. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Thakkidiram Reddy and Ors. MANU/SC/0490/1998 : (1998) 6 SCC 554, this Court considered the issue of failure to frame the proper charges. observing as under:

10. Sub-section (1) of Section 464 of the Code of criminal Procedure 1973 ('the Code', for short) expressly provides that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. Sub-section (2) of the said section lays down the procedure that the court of appeal, confirmation or revision has to follow in case it is of the opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. The other section relevant for our purposes is Section 465 of the Code; and it lays down that no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal, confirmation or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the proceedings, unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned. It further provides, inter alia, that in determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.

The Court further held that in judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, the court must look to the substance of the matter and not to technicalities, and its main concern should be to see whether the accused had a fair trial, whether he knew what he was being tried for, whether the main facts sought to be established against him were explained to him fairly and clearly and whether he was given a full and fair chance to defend himself. In the said case this Court ultimately came to the conclusion that despite the defect in the framing of charges, as no prejudice had been caused to the accused, no interference was required.

40. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Willie (William) Slaney v. State of Madhya Pradesh MANU/SC/0038/1955 : AIR 1956 SC 116, considered the issue of failure to frame charges properly and the conviction of an accused for the offences for which he has not been charged and reached the conclusion as under:

86. ... In such a situation, the absence of a charge under one or other of the various heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to be fatal by itself, and before a conviction for the substantive offence, without a charge, can be set aside, prejudice will have to be made out....

87. ... If it is so grave that prejudice will necessarily be implied or imported, it may be described as an illegality. If the seriousness of the omission is of a lesser degree, it will be an irregularity and prejudice by way of failure of justice will have to be established.

41. This Court in Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/2515/2005 : (2005) 12 SCC 615, referred to and relied upon its earlier judgments in Willie (William) Slaney (supra) and Thakkidiram Reddy (supra), and held that unless there is a failure of justice and thereby the cause of the accused has been prejudiced, no interference is required if the conviction can be upheld on the evidence led against the accused. The Court should not interfere unless it is established that the accused was in any way prejudiced due to the errors and omissions in framing the charges against him.

A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Ramji Singh v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0632/2001 : (2001) 9 SCC 528; and Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0888/2009 : (2009) 7 SCC 198.

42. There is no bar in law on conviction of the accused with the aid of Section 34 IPC in place of Section 149 IPC if there is evidence on record to show that such accused shared a common intention to commit the crime and no apparent injustice or prejudice is shown to have been caused by application of Section 34 IPC in place of Section 149 IPC. The absence of a charge under one or the other or the various heads of criminal liability for the offence cannot be said to be by itself prejudicial to the accused, and before a conviction for the substantive offence without a charge can be set aside, prejudice will have to be made out. Such a legal position is bound to be held good in view of the provisions of Sections 215, 216, 218, 221 and 464 of Code of criminal Procedure, 1973. (Vide: Dalip Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0031/1953 : AIR 1953 SC 364; Malhu Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0393/2002 : (2002) 5 SCC 724; Dhaneswar Mahakud and Ors. v. State of Orissa (2009) 9 SCC 307; and Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh MANU/SC/0640/2009 : AIR 2009 SC 2661).

43. Thus, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that unless the accused is able to establish that the defect(s) in framing the charge(s) has caused real prejudice to him; that he was not informed as to what was the real case against him; or that he could not defend himself properly, no interference is required on mere technicalities.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1243 of 2007

Decided On: 14.09.2010

 Abdul Sayeed  Vs.    State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0702/2010,(2010) 10 SCC 259

Print Page

Whether the court can convict accused prosecuted for an offence under the POCSO Act based on digital medical examination of the victim?

The testimony of the victim stood supported by medical

examination. P.W.10 - Dr. Sambhaji Kadam, though has stated that he had

not found any recent tears, stains due to semen, blood, faecal matters around

the anus or there was no injury or no mark of violence, yet, he has stated that

when he had digitally examined the anus, he had found the tone of the

sphincter to be hypotonic. Further, in the cross he has explained that there

was no injury but other findings were there to come to the conclusion that

the intercourse had happened. After he had digitally examined the patient, it

was found that there was tenderness and that patient was feeling the pain at

that time. Further, he has denied the suggestion that the hypotonic may be

caused due to defecation. The cross examination of the medical officer

would show that the conclusion drawn by him is not shattered, which says

that “findings are consistent with entry of penis into anus”. Thus, when the medical evidence is supporting the victim and there is nothing in the cross

examination of the victim to discard his evidence or brand it as unbelievable

or untrustworthy, then these facts only were sufficient to come to the

conclusion that the accused has committed the offence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.722 OF 2016

Mahesh Sambhaji Chafle Vs  The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

PRONOUNCED ON : 12-06-2020

Print Page

Leading Supreme court judgment on appreciation of medical evidence and ocular evidence

Coming to the plea that the medical evidence is at variance with ocular evidence, it has to be noted that it would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye-witnesses' account which had to be tested independently and not treated as the "variable" keeping the medical evidence as the "constant".

9. It is trite that where the eye-witnesses' account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bentham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the quality of the trial process. Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts; the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the s for a cumulative evaluation.

10. A person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to 'proof' is an exercise particular to each case? Referring to probability amounts to 'proof' is an exercise the inter-dependence of evidence and the confirmation of one piece of evidence by another a learned author says: (See "The Mathematics of Proof II": Glanville Williams: Criminal Law Review, 1979, by Sweet and Maxwell, p.340 (342).

"The simple multiplication rule does not apply if the separate pieces of evidence are dependent. Two events are dependent when they tend to occur together, and the evidence of such events may also be said to be dependent. In a criminal case, different pieces of evidence directed to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the specified state of mind are generally dependent. A junior may feel doubt whether to credit an alleged confession, and doubt whether to infer guilt from the fact that the defendant fled from justice. But since it is generally guilty rather than innocent people who make confessions and guilty rather than innocent people who run away, the two doubts are not to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may confirm the other."

11. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused persons arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible doubt; but a fair doubt based upon reason and commonsense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case.

12. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. This position was illuminatingly stated by Venkatachaliah, J. (as His Lordship then was) in State of U.P. v. Krishna Gopal and Anr. MANU/SC/0506/1988 : 1989CriLJ288 .

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 238-239 of 2004

Decided On: 29.10.2004

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Dharkole and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Dr. Arijit Pasayat and C.K. Thakker, JJ.

Print Page

Whether accused can be acquitted if Expert Evidence is cryptic and inadequate?

But looking at the post-mortem report, cause of injuries was not stated nor was any opinion formed to create independent testimony. We would like to emphasize on the vital role played by opinion of the expert which is simply a conclusion drawn from a set of facts coming to his knowledge and observation. Expert's opinion should be demonstrative and should be supported by convincing reasons. Court cannot be expected to surrender its own judgment and delegate its authority to a third person, however great. If the report of an expert is slipshod, inadequate or cryptic and information on similarities or dissimilarities is not available in the report of an expert then his opinion is of no value. Such opinions are often of no use to the court and often lead to the breaking of very important links of prosecution evidence which are led for the purpose of prosecution. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that death was caused due to the injuries inflicted by the recovered weapons.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

(Before Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ.)

Machindra v.  Sajjan Galpha Rankhamb & Ors

Print Page

How to appreciate evidence if Ocular evidence is contradictory of Medical evidence?

 We are of the view that the High Court, for acquitting the
respondents, had mainly relied upon the medical evidence in a very
inappropriate manner. When the doctor (PW 7) in his examination-inchief
had categorically stated that the incident could have occurred at
8.00 a.m. which corroborated the case of the informant, there was no
reason to disbelieve this fact to hold that the incident occurred
between 2.00 to 4.00 a.m. merely basing on a vague statement made
by the Doctor in the cross-examination. Also we believe that merely
for the reason that no blunt injuries were present on the deceased,
the whole evidence of PW 1 cannot be discarded as primacy has to
be given to the ocular evidence particularly in the case of minor
discrepancies. This Court in Darbara Singh Vs. State of Punjab,
(2012) 10 SCC 476, wherein this Court has held :
“…. So far as the question of inconsistency between the
medical evidence and the ocular evidence is concerned,
the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence
available is totally irreconcilable with the medical
evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy. In the
event of contradictions between medical and ocular
evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have
greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence
and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony
improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the
process of evaluation of such evidence. It is only when
the contradiction between the two is so extreme that
the medical evidence completely rules out all
possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all,

that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved.”

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1467-1468 OF 2005
SADHU SARAN SINGH 
V
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
Dated;FEBRUARY 26, 2016
N.V. RAMANA, J.
Citation;(2016) 4 SCC357

Print Page