If expert's evidence is defective whether Court can substitute its opinion for that of doctor?

Needless to state that medico-legal postmortem examination is very important part of prosecution evidence and it is therefore necessary that it should be conducted by a doctor fully competent. It is the statement of doctor in the Court and not the postmortem report which a substantive evidence. In our view doctor who examines deceased and conducts postmortem is the only competent person to opine about nature of injuries and cause of death. But where competency itself is inherently defective question arises whether the Court would discard such evidence or based on such evidence of witness who is otherwise not competent would fasten the criminal liability on the Accused.

10 In the case on hand PW-6 Dr. Khamkar had stated in his examination-in-chief that he is B.A.M.S. In cross-examination he admitted that he is not qualified as M.B.B.S. He has not completed the course in Orthopedic. He had no exclusive knowledge in respect of bones. He conducted postmortem in the case of throttling for the first time. Though Dr. Khamkar stated in further cross-examination that he conducted postmortem in 40-50 cases of death due to asphyxia, fact remains that he performed postmortem in case of throttling for the first time i.e. in the present case. There is no evidence to show that Dr. Khamkar had an experience or training to conduct postmortem in case of throttling.

On the contrary unequivocal admissions elicited in cross-

examination of Dr. Khamkar indicate that he was not competent to perform postmortem in the case in question.

11 We therefore find the opinion given by Dr. Khamkar who had no experience, training and qualification in the subject as inherently defective. If expert's evidence is defective Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the doctor.

Bombay High Court

Dattatray Bajirao Lagad vs The State Of Mah on 16 October, 2015

                                         
                                       
        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD


       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2012

    

       CORAM :      A. B. CHAUDHARI &
                        INDIRA K. JAIN, JJ.

 Citation: 2016(1)BomCR(Cri)373

Print Page