S.32 Evidence Act | Post-Mortem Certificate Issued By Doctor Who Isn't Examined Due To Death/Unavailability Is Admissible: Telangana HC

Post By 24law
March 3, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Telangana High Court has held that a post-mortem certificate issued by a doctor is admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act when the doctor who conducted the autopsy is unavailable or deceased. The Court clarified that such a report can be proved through another medical expert who identifies the handwriting and signature of the original doctor who performed the autopsy.

Court’s Observations on Section 32 of the Evidence Act

Justice E.V. Venugopal explained that under normal circumstances, a post-mortem certificate is a document containing the previous statement of a doctor, which can only be used for corroboration or contradiction under Sections 145, 147, or 159 of the Evidence Act. However, he emphasized that Section 32 serves as an exception: "The normal rule is that a post-mortem certificate being a document containing the previous statement of a Doctor who examined the dead body can be used only to corroborate the statement under Section 147 or to contradict the statement under Section 145 or to refresh his memory under Section 159 of the Evidence Act. But the provision of Section 32 of the Evidence Act is an exception to this rule. If the Doctor who held autopsy is dead or is not available for examination, the certificate issued by him is relevant and admissible under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act." The Court further explained: "Section 32 of the Evidence Act provides that when a statement, written or verbal, is made by a person in the discharge of professional duty whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay, the same is relevant and admissible in evidence. Besides, since the carbon copy was made by one uniform process the same was primary evidence within the meaning of Explanation 2 to Section 62 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, the medical certificate was clearly admissible in evidence."

Case Background

The Court was hearing a criminal revision plea against an order convicting the petitioner under Section 304-Part II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentencing him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000. The incident, which occurred in 2002, involved a dispute between the accused and the de facto complainant over access to agricultural fields. The complainant and her husband objected to the accused crossing their land with a bullock cart, leading to a physical altercation. The husband of the complainant was allegedly assaulted, leading to severe injuries, which later resulted in his death. Following a police complaint, the petitioner and two co-accused were arrested. The co-accused (A2 and A3) were acquitted of the charge under Section 304 Part II, but the petitioner (A1) was convicted. His appeal before the appellate court was dismissed, prompting him to approach the High Court.

Petitioner's Arguments and Court’s Response

The petitioner’s counsel contended that:

The post-mortem report could not be relied upon because the doctor who conducted it was not examined.

The eyewitnesses did not support the prosecution's case.

The deceased had injured himself 15 days prior to the incident, which could have caused his death.

The Court rejected these arguments, stating: "...contention also holds no ground since it is well established that when the doctor who conducted autopsy over the deceased was not available and some other doctor who knows and identifies the handwriting and signature of the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body, it can be safely concluded that the postmortem examination is proved." The Court further noted that the prosecution was duty-bound to examine the autopsy doctor, but failure to do so did not weaken the case, as long as the report was proved through another competent witness (P.W.16, a subsequent doctor).

Court’s Findings and Judgment

The High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the petitioner under Section 304-Part II IPC beyond reasonable doubt. However, taking into account that the case dated back to 2002, and the petitioner had already undergone incarceration for a period, the Court reduced the sentence to the period already undergone while enhancing the fine amount to Rs.2,00,000, to be paid within three months. The Court ruled: "In default, the petitioner shall suffer simple imprisonment for one year."