Confliction or Corroboration – A Legal Study.
BY
Dr. Y. SRINIVASA RAO,
M.A (English Lit.)., B.Ed., LL.M., Ph.D in Law of Torts.
‘A vague conjecture or an inference of the possibility of the innocence of the accused is not a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is one which arises from a consideration of all the evidence in a fair and reasonable way.’ – The Law of Criminal Evidence authored by HC Underhill, at page 34, Volume 1 of the Fifth Edition.
Introduction:
It is true that courts of law have to judge the evidence before them by applying the well recognised test of basic human probabilities. Despite it is a general rule that where there are some minor contradictions between medical evidence and oral evidence, oral evidence can be given preference over medical evidence, however, where the medical evidence completely rules out the oral evidence, medical evidence is relied upon by the courts for deciding the guilt of the accused. Ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative, as was held in Solanki Chimanbhai’s case (infra). 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 eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. It is also significant to note that the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, court is not obliged to go by that opinion.
Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defines the term “Evidence”. “Evidence” means and includes —
(1) all statements which the Court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses, in relation to matters of fact under inquiry, such statements are called oral evidence;
(2) all documents including electronic records produced for the inspection of the Court, such documents are called documentary evidence.
In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1983 SC 484, it was held that 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 eye witnesses, the testimony of the eye witnesses cannot be thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence. (See. Para 13).
In State Of Kerala vs Mathew ( M. M. ) And Anr, 1979 SCR (1) 264, it was held that “….. prima facie public servants must be presumed to act honestly and conscientiously and their evidence has to be assessed on its intrinsic worth and cannot be discarded merely on the ground that being public servants they are interested in the success of their case…..”
In Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak vs. State of Gujarat, (2003) 9 SCC 322, it was observed that Medical evidence is in no way at variance with ocular evidence and in any event the ocular evidence being cogent has been rightly accepted. It would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eye witnesses account which has to be tested independently and not treated as “variable” keeping in view the medical evidence as “constant”. (See State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal and Anr, (AIR 1988 SC 2154).
In Chiguripati Suryanarayanav. State of A.P, 1999 (1) ALT Cri 219, it was observed that As regard the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that when there is a conflict between the version of the eye-witnesses and the medical opinion, the latter must yield place to the version of the eye-witnesses cannot under the circumstances of this case be accepted. It is not a universal principle supported by any authority that in all cases when there is a variance between the account given by the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, the evidence of eye-witnesses must prevail ignoring the medical evidence.
It is not always a question of straight choice between the acceptance of the version of the eye-witnesses or acceptance of the evidence of the medical expert. In appreciating the evidence of eye-witnesses, the medical evidence which is said to improbabilise their version is an important circumstance which has to be considered in conjunction with other circumstances and evidence in the case. It is true that the medical opinion as to the time of death cannot be treated as conclusive because it depends on various circumstances. Thus the evidence of eye-witnesses had to be evaluated on its own merits as to its credibility and it cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that it is inconsistent with medical evidence. But such expert evidence, however, will be one of the factors along with other circumstances in the case to judge the truthfulness of the eyewitnesses. See. Chiguripati Suryanarayana’s case (supra).
In State of Haryana vs. Bhagirath, (1999) SCC (Crl) 658, it was held that The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such opinion shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, 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.
In State of U.P. v. Ram Bahadur Singh, (2004) 9 SCC 310, it was held that In the appeal preferred by the accused persons, the High Court found that there were serious infirmities in the prosecution case. It is found that oral evidence given by the eye witnesses was inconsistent with the medical evidence given by PW-3. As per the oral evidence, the accused Bhanu Pratap Singh was standing at a distance of 18 to 20 feet away from the deceased Onkar Nath Singh when he fired. Oral evidence to the effect that tatooning and scorching was present on the adjoining skin, that could have been caused only if the firing had been done from a distance of four feet. Reason given by the High Court cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable.
In Mani Ram vs State Of Rajasthan, AIR 1993 SC 2453, it was observed that the emphasis on this aspect of the case by the Trial Court, in our opinion, is misplaced not only because the medical evidence is only an evidence of opinion and is hardly decisive but also because when Dr. K.C. Mittal PW9 stated that digestion begins in 1 or 1.1/2 hours, he did not clarify as to what was the extent of the undigested food in the stomach of the deceased.
“The judicial instrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt.” – Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr vs State Of Maharashtra, 1974 (1) SCR 489
In State Of U.P vs Krishna Gopal & Anr, 1988 SCR Supl. (2) 391, the Supreme Court observed that eye witnesses account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely pre-judged making any other evidence including medical evidence as the sole touchstone for test of such credibility. It was further held in this decision that 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.
Conclusion:
in case of minor contradictions between the two, oral evidence is given preference than medical evidence. In general sense, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. Medical evidence 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. As is discussed earlier, the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. The evidence of eye-witnesses had to be evaluated on its own merits as to its credibility and it cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that it is inconsistent with medical evidence. 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. 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 touch-stone 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.
___________