Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Allahabad Court reiterated that in case of the admission of a genuine postmortem by the defense, it was to be addressed to as proper evidence. Chief Justice Govind Mathur and Justice Vivek Varma said “If the defense has admitted the genuineness of the postmortem report before the trial court, the genuineness and veracity of the document stands proved and shall be treated as valid evidence under Section 294 of CrPC.”
The appellant submitted before the HC that the doctor who had submitted the postmortem report had not been duly examined by the Trial Court. They were of the opinion that such a procedure was not in accordance with the law. The post mortem report that was allowed under Sec 294 of the CrPC could not be allowed until the “same had been duly proved by the Doctor who had prepared the same.”
The HC heard the arguments of both the parties and said that the claim by the appellant was “legally unsustainable”. The HC said “in view of the settled position of law that if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party, it can be treated as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 Cr.P.C……section appears to be to avoid the time of the Court being wasted by examining the signatory of the document filed by the prosecution or the accused under Sub-section (1) of Section 294, Cr. P.C. to prove his signature and the correctness of its contents if its genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party.”
The Court also placed reliance on the Full Bench Report of the HC in the case of Sadique & Ors. V. State of UP 1981 CrLJ 379. The court also noted that the statement presented by the key witness conflicted directly with the post mortem report. The court thus set aside the conviction order of the Trial Court and observed, “on the cumulative evaluation of the evidence on record and testing the prosecution evidence on the anvil of probabilities we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and as such the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of doubt. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the judgement and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants and acquit them of the charges. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824