Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms that a postmortem report admitted under Section 294 CrPC is admissible even if the doctor is not examined, where corroborative evidence exists. The judgment upholds Supreme Court precedent and confirms that non-examination alone does not vitiate prosecution. This binding authority affects all criminal trials relying on medical documents.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | ACQA/418/2010 of STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs RAJANO and ORS. |
| CNR | CGHC010003602010 |
| Date of Registration | 19-08-2010 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge (Concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, C.J. and Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, J. |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for subordinate courts under Chhattisgarh High Court; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Supreme Court precedents on admissibility of postmortem reports; sets aside trial court approach |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law, Law of Evidence |
| Questions of Law | Whether an accused can be acquitted solely on the ground that the doctor who conducted the postmortem was not examined, even when the postmortem report is admitted and corroborative evidence exists? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that non-examination of the doctor who conducted the postmortem cannot be the sole reason for acquitting accused when the postmortem report is admitted by the defence under Section 294 CrPC and corroborated by credible eyewitness and forensic evidence. Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act makes such reports admissible even without the doctor’s testimony, especially when obtaining the doctor’s attendance in court would result in undue delay or if the doctor is unavailable. The admissibility of postmortem reports was further underlined as primary evidence when the document is generated uniformly. The trial court’s omission to consider the admitted postmortem report, in light of overwhelming corroborative witness testimony, constituted a perverse and erroneous approach justifying interference by the appellate court. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedents on the approach to acquittal appeals (C. Antony, Ramanand Yadav, Tota Singh); principles on appreciating injured eyewitness testimony (Balu Sudam Khalde); statutory interpretation of Section 27 and Section 32(2) Evidence Act concerning admissibility of documents when the author is not examined; Section 294 CrPC regarding admission of documents; Section 27 Evidence Act on discoveries pursuant to information from accused persons while in custody; concept of “custody” for purposes of Section 27 Evidence Act. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The case originated from a family and village dispute involving accused believing deceased Arjun and his wife to be witches responsible for the possession of one Ratan. On 05.02.1994, the accused, armed with deadly weapons, attacked and assaulted Arjun and his family, resulting in Arjun’s death and injuries to other family members. FIR was registered under multiple IPC sections including 302/149 and 307/149. The trial court acquitted the accused of murder and attempt to murder charges solely due to non-examination of the doctor who performed the postmortem, despite admission of the postmortem report by the accused, and convicted them only under lesser offences. The State appealed against acquittal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court, especially on admissibility of medical reports |
| Overrules | Sets aside the acquittal approach of the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 295/1994 (Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that non-examination of the doctor who performed the postmortem cannot by itself ground an acquittal when the postmortem report is admitted by the accused under Section 294 CrPC.
- Clarifies that postmortem reports are admissible as primary evidence under Section 32(2) Evidence Act if the doctor is unavailable, deceased, or attendance would cause undue delay.
- Emphasizes judicial duty to consider cumulative evidence—including admitted documents and corroborative eyewitness accounts—before recording acquittals in serious offences.
- Sets a clear precedent that mere procedural omission by prosecution (i.e., not examining the doctor) does not eclipse substantive incriminating material when otherwise proved.
- Lawyers may cite this case to counter defence arguments seeking acquittal solely due to lack of examination of the medical witness when the postmortem report is otherwise admitted and corroborated.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court articulated the settled principles for appellate review of acquittals, relying on C. Antony, Ramanand Yadav, and Tota Singh, that interference with acquittal is warranted only where trial court findings are perverse or manifestly illegal.
- The court closely analysed the credibility of injured eyewitness testimony, guided by Balu Sudam Khalde, noting that such testimony has enhanced probative value unless materially contradicted.
- The principal error of the trial court was to disregard the admitted postmortem report (Ex.P-55), solely because the doctor was not examined, thus ignoring Section 32(2) Evidence Act and the principle that such reports are admissible when the author’s presence cannot easily be procured and when corroborated by other substantive evidence.
- The court marshaled Supreme Court authority (Asar Mohammad, Perumal Raja, Boby v Kerala) on the broader admissibility of documentary evidence and discovery statements.
- The High Court found that the trial court’s approach—refusing to rely on an admitted postmortem—was not justified in law and overlooked the legal effect of admission under Section 294 CrPC.
- Upon reappreciating the entire evidence, the appellate court found it safe to convict under Section 302/149 IPC, as the combination of eyewitness accounts, admitted medical evidence, and incriminating recoveries excluded reasonable doubt.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (State):
- The trial court’s acquittal for 302/149 IPC is illegal as the postmortem report was admitted by the accused, and non-examination of the doctor cannot negate the evidentiary value of the admitted medical evidence.
- Injured eyewitnesses have conclusively supported the prosecution’s case.
- Material evidence, including the postmortem and medical examinations, establish proof beyond reasonable doubt—even for serious offences—warranting conviction under Sections 302/149 and 307/149 IPC.
Respondents (Accused):
- The trial court’s acquittal is based on careful and correct appreciation of evidence.
- Only minor offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt; prosecution failed to establish guilt for murder and attempt to murder due to inconsistencies and absence of medical expert testimony.
- The absence of examination of the doctor who conducted the autopsy creates doubt sufficient to sustain acquittal on major charges.
Factual Background
The case arose from a violent incident on 05.02.1994, following a village meeting concerning exorcism for Ratan Marar, who was alleged to be possessed by a ghost. The accused, all related to the deceased, attacked Arjun and his family with sticks, rods, and axes, suspecting them of witchcraft. Magan (PW-5), the son of the deceased, reported the matter to police, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 452/34 IPC. The trial resulted in acquittal for murder and attempt to murder due to non-examination of the doctor, despite the postmortem report’s admission and credible eyewitness accounts. The State appealed the acquittal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 32(2), Evidence Act: The court interpreted this section to hold that a postmortem report is admissible as evidence of cause of death even when the doctor is not examined, provided the doctor is unavailable or summoning him would cause delay.
- Section 294, CrPC: The High Court reiterated that when a document (such as a postmortem report) is admitted by the accused, its contents may be used as substantive evidence, and failure to examine the author does not ipso facto render the evidence valueless.
- Sections 27, 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 452/34 IPC: The relevant offences and rules on discovery of facts from accused’s statements in police custody were discussed and applied.
- Section 313, CrPC: Accused were examined; their denials were considered.
- The approach taken by the trial court (demanding medical deposition as a sine qua non for conviction when postmortem report is admitted and corroborated) was rejected.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded. Both judges signed the common judgment and agreed with the legal reasoning and the outcome.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines have been specified in the judgment. The High Court adhered to established procedure for appeals against acquittal and documents admitted under Section 294 CrPC.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment upholds and applies settled Supreme Court law interpreting Section 32(2) Evidence Act and principles on appellate interference with acquittal.