Whether Medical witness who performs post-mortem is witness of fact?

 On perusal of the record, it has further been noticed by us that there was six days' delay in lodging the FIR which remained unexplained throughout the trial and in the appeal before the High Court. One last fact which is imperative and crucial to be mentioned here is that opinion on the cause of injuries was neither mentioned by doctor PW-6 in his deposition, nor in post-mortem report. In criminal cases pertaining to offences against human body, medical evidence has decisive role to play. A medical witness who performs a post-mortem examination is a witness of fact though he also gives an opinion on certain aspects of the case. This proposition of law has been stated by this Court in Smt. Nagindra Bala Mitraand v. Sunil Chandra Roy, 1960 SCR (3) 1, as follows:

“The value of a medical witness is not merely a check upon the testimony of eye witnesses; it is also independent testimony because it may establish certain facts quite apart from the other oral evidence. If a person is shot at a close range, the mark of tattooing found by the medical witness would draw that the range was small, quite apart from any other opinion of his. Similarly, fractures of bones, depth and size of the wounds would show the nature of the weapon used. It is wrong to say that it is only opinion evidence; it is often direct evidence of the facts found upon the victim's person.”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

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

Machindra v.

Sajjan Galpha Rankhamb & Ors

Criminal Appeal No. 1794 of 2013

Decided on April 19, 2017

Citation:2017 SCC ONLINE 443

Print Page

When Expert witness should not be treated as hostile witness?

The question whether, on the inconsistent statements made by an expert witness, who was called upon to act as an expert witness and to furnish his opinion on any particular aspect, he could be treated as a hostile witness, has come in for consideration, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the' respondent, in a case before the Supreme Court in Prem Sagar Manocha v. State (NCT of Delhi), MANU/SC/0029/2016 : AIR 2016 SC 290 and the Supreme Court has expressed as follows:--

"Expert evidence needs to be given a closer scrutiny and requires a different approach while initiating proceedings under' Section 340 of Cr PC. After all, it is an opinion given by an expert and a professional and that too especially when the expert himself has lodged a caveat regarding his inability to form a definite opinion without the required material. The duty of an expert is to furnish the Court his opinion and the reasons for his opinion along with all the materials. It is for the Court thereafter to see whether the basis of the opinion is correct and proper and then form its own conclusion. But, that is not the case in respect of a witness of facts. Facts are facts and they remain and have to remain as such forever. The witness of facts does not give his opinion on facts; but presents the facts as such. However, the expert gives an opinion on what he had tested or on what has been subjected to any process of scrutiny. The inference drawn thereafter is still an opinion based on his knowledge. In case, subsequently, he comes across some authentic material which may suggest a different opinion, he must address the same, lest he should be branded as intellectually dishonest. Objective approach and openness to truth actually form the basis of any expert; opinion."

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

Writ Petition No. 29772 of 2015 (GM-FC)

Decided On: 12.02.2016

 D.R. Lakshmi Narayana Guptha  Vs. K.R. Archana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:Anand Byrareddy, J.

Citation;AIR 2016 karnat67

Print Page