SC: Post-mortem Report by a Non-Expert Doctor cannot be relied (Read Judgement)

Facts of the case were that the appellant accused along with his parents used to demand dowry from the deceased and her parents in the form of money as well as gold ornaments. It is also alleged that the accused used to torture the deceased (his wife). The deceased is said to have been burnt to death by setting her ablaze after pouring kerosene on her, in order to remove any proof as to the commission of the offence.

The post-mortem was performed by the doctor on the deceased and he was unable to depose as to what type of internal injury the victim had suffered and had admitted in his cross-examination

that he is not an expert in post-mortem examination in as much as he was a Civil Assistant Surgeon.

Appellant’s parents were acquitted by the High Court, however the appellant was convicted.

The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R.S Reddy concluded that from the evidence it is clear that the doctor was not only confused, but he had also tried to mislead the Court by deposing in vague terms.

Supreme Court found him to be a non-expert as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The bench observed that he was not an expert in post-mortem examination, thus, no reliance can be placed on his deposition.

SC stated, “This is a case of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof lies on prosecution. In the instant case, the prosecution has not been able to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the same must ensure to the benefit of the accused. The reasons assigned by the High Court and its conclusion are improper and incorrect.”

The Appellant was acquitted of the charges levelled against him as the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

Read the Judgement: