Criminal trial - Medical jurisprudence is not an exact science with precision; but merely opinionative - Oral evidence has to get primacy
PLR - Supreme Court e@Journal
(2018)2 SCeJ 1763
Criminal trial - Medical jurisprudence is not an exact science with precision; but merely opinionative - Oral evidence has to get primacy and the medical evidence is basically opinionative that the medical evidence states that the injury could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more - The testimony of the eye witness cannot be thrown out on the ground of inconsistency - When the medical opinion given is not inconsistent with the probability of the case, the court cannot discard the credible direct evidence otherwise the administration of justice is to depend on the opinionative evidence of medical expert - In the case in hand, the contradictions pointed out between the oral and medical evidence are not so grave in nature that can prove fatal to the prosecution case.
Criminal trial - Ocular testimony and Medical evidence - With regard to the conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, in our considered opinion, the High Court has ignored the fact that lathis were also used while assaulting along with sharp edge weapons - It is by now well settled that the medical evidence cannot override the evidence of ocular testimony of the witnesses - If there is a conflict between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence, naturally the ocular testimony prevails - In other words, where the eye witnesses account is found to be trustworthy and credible, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive . (2018)2 SCeJournal 1390