The Practical Lawyer

Contradictions between Oral and Medical Evidence

Contradictions between Oral and Medical Evidence

by Nirmal Chopra*
Cite as: (2006) PL October 5
This article deals with the question of conflict between medical and oral evidence. In a general sense, “medical evidence―
means the evidence of a medical expert including a doctor. “Oral evidence― on the other hand, means the “evidenceâ€
is orally given by a person in a court of law.

The Evidence Act, 1872, however, defines these terms in a more technical sense. Section 3 of the Act provides that
“evidence― means and includes:

- All statements, which the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matter of fact under
inquiry. Such statements are called oral evidence.Â
- All documents produced for the inspection of the court; such documents are called documentary evidence. The term
“medical evidence― has not been defined in the Evidence Act, but the opinion of an expert from the field of science, which
covers “medicine― also, is admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Interestingly, while Section 45 makes
admissible the opinion of an expert, it doesn’t say anything about the weight to be attached or given to the opinion of an
expert. In case of medical evidence, it has to be weighed by taking into consideration, its corroboration or conflict with
oral evidence as the case may be. In this context the observations of the Supreme Court in Madan Gopal Kakkad v.
Naval Dubey1 are relevant wherein it was held: (SCC pp. 221-22, para 34)

“34. A medical witness called in as an expert to assist the court is not a witness of fact and the evidence given by the
medical officer is really of an advisory character given on the basis of the symptoms found on examination. The expert
witness is expected to put before the court all materials inclusive of the data which induced him to come to the conclusion
and enlighten the court on the technical aspect of the case by explaining the terms of science so that the court although,
not an expert may form its own judgment on those materials after giving due regard to the expert’s opinion because once
the expert’s opinion is accepted, it is not the opinion of the medical officer but of the court.―

Similarly in Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan2 it was held that the medical evidence is only an evidence of an opinion and
is hardly decisive.

The conflict between medical and oral evidence has always been a matter of interpretation by the courts and this conflict
can have various dimensions, mentioned hereinafter. Though as a general rule, oral evidence is given preference over
medical evidence, in case of minor contradictions between the two. But 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.

In Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat3 it was held that the eyewitnesses’ account should be preferred
unless the medical evidence completely rules it out. It was held (SCC p. 180, para 13) that:
       “13. 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
eyewitnesses. 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 eyewitnesses, the testimony of the eyewitnesses cannot be
thrown out on the ground of alleged inconsistency between it and the medical evidence.―

This legal position has been reaffirmed in later decisions also such as Nanhau Ram v. State of M.P.4 , etc. etc.

In State of Haryana v. Bhagirath5 the Supreme Court pointed out the relevance of both medical and oral evidence and
observed: (SCC p. 101, para 15)
       “15. The opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject. Such opinion shall be te
by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the 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 Dhirajbhai Gorakhbhai Nayak v. State of Gujarat6 the appellant’s contention was that as per the doctor’s opinion, the
injury alleged to have been caused by him, could not have been caused by the weapon of assault. Rejecting such plea
the Supreme Court held that: (SCC pp. 326-27, para 8)
       “Only in respect of Injury 1, there appears to be some confusion but that does not dilute the prosecution evide
would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical answers of medical witnesses to exclude the
eyewitnesses’ account, which has to be tested independently and not treated as ‘variable’ keeping in view the medica
https://www.supremecourtcases.com Eastern Book Company Generated: Sunday, August 4, 2019
 The Practical Lawyer

evidence as ‘constant’.―

Similarly in Krishnan v. State7 it was held: (SCC p. 62, para 21)

If the ocular evidence was cogent, credible and trustworthy, minor variance, if any, with the medical evidence pointing to
alternative probabilities cannot be accepted as conclusive.

In yet another decision in Thaman Kumar v. State of U.T. of Chandigarh8 the Supreme Court elaborated the various
dimensions of the conflict between medical and oral testimony and held: (SCC p. 389, para 16)
       “16. The conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes. The
be a case where there is total absence of injuries which are normally caused by a particular weapon. There is another
category where though the injuries found on the victim are of the type which are possible by the weapon of assault, but
the size and dimension of the injuries do not exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon. The third category
can be where the injuries found on the victim are such which are normally caused by the weapon of assault but they are
not found on that portion of the body where they are deposed to have been caused by the eyewitnesses. The same kind
of inference cannot be drawn in the three categories of apparent conflict in oral and medical evidence enumerated
above. In the first category it may legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding assault having been made
from a particular weapon is not truthful. However, in the second and third categories no such inference can straightaway
be drawn. The manner and method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity
available to the witnesses to see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and many other similar factors will
have to be taken into consideration in judging the reliability of ocular testimony.―

In respect of the third category referred in Thaman Kumar case8, an earlier three-Judge Bench decision in Mani Ram v.
State of U.P.9 is noteworthy. In this case, the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC. The only eyewitness
admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased was shot on his back while he was running, whereas the injury as
per the medical evidence was on the right shoulder and front side of the upper arm of the deceased. Acquitting the
appellant, the Supreme Court held: (SCC p. 292, para 9)
“It is well settled by long series of decisions of this Court that where the direct evidence is not supported by the expert
evidence then the evidence is wanting in the most material part of the prosecution case and, therefore, it would be
difficult to convict the accused on the basis of such evidence. If the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is totally
inconsistent with the medical evidence this is a most fundamental defect in the prosecution case and unless this
inconsistency is reasonably explained it is sufficient not only to discredit the evidence but the entire case.―

In a similar context, the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chiguripati Suryanarayana v. State of A.P.10 observed:
(Cri LJ p. 1205, para 11)
       “It is not a universal principle supported by any authority that in all cases when there is a variance between th
account given by the eyewitnesses and the medical evidence, the evidence of eyewitnesses must prevail ignoring the
medical evidence.―

The Court further observed that: (Cri LJ p. 1205, para 11)

       It all depends on the nature of evidence given by the eyewitnesses and the matter in respect of which the opinion
has been given and that in appreciating the evidence of 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.

State of U.P. v. Ram Bahadur Singh11 has been another interesting case of the recent times where the accused was
acquitted on the ground of serious contradictions between medical and oral evidence. As per the oral evidence, one of
the accused Bhanu Pratap was standing at a distance of 18 or 20 feet from the deceased, when he fired two gunshots at
him which hit him. However, the doctor found only one gunshot injury as well as tattooing and scorching on the adjoining
skin, which as per the opinion of the doctor could have been caused only if the firing had been done from a distance of
four feet. These contradictions and opinion of the doctor were relied upon by the High Court in acquitting the accused
and the said finding of the High Court was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Conclusion
This discussion, no doubt, leads to a conclusion that in case of minor variances between the oral and medical evidence,
oral evidence can be given primacy over the other. However, in case of major contradictions between the two, various
factors have to be taken into consideration while deciding the question of the guilt of the accused. The observations of
the Supreme Court in Thaman Kumar8 and Mani Ram9 cases mentioned hereinbefore can be the guiding factor.
Moreover, another point of consideration may be that the eyewitnesses stating completely contrary to the medical
evidence may be the interested witnesses intending to falsely implicate the accused and the courts while deciding the
question of conflict between medical and oral evidence can look into this aspect also.

* Advocate.

- (1992) 3 SCC 204 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 598

https://www.supremecourtcases.com Eastern Book Company Generated: Sunday, August 4, 2019
 The Practical Lawyer

- 1993 Supp (3) SCC 18 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 853

- (1983) 2 SCC 174 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 379
- 1988 Supp SCC 152 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 342
- (1999) 5 SCC 96 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 658
- (2003) 9 SCC 322 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1809
- (2003) 7 SCC 56 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1577
- (2003) 6 SCC 380 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1362
- 1994 Supp (2) SCC 289 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1242
- 1999 Cri LJ 1201 (AP)
- (2004) 9 SCC 310 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1463 Â

https://www.supremecourtcases.com Eastern Book Company Generated: Sunday, August 4, 2019