Medical Examination and Its Evidentiary Value in Trials

Abstract

During the course of a criminal trial, medical evidence plays a critical role as corroborative evidence, which is frequently used by the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt. These evidences are employed in circumstances where there is bodily harm, and because they are corroborative in nature, they complement or detract from the witness(es) testimony, as the case may be. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for medical experts to opine on a case with the expertise they have on the field and the knowledge they have acquired through medical examination with respect to the case. The basic purpose of criminal defense is to raise equitable suspicion. In any case with medical evidences, the criminal defense attorney must figure out how to use it to raise equitable suspicion. Unlike law, where practically everything can be debated or interpreted, science is more black-and-white, in the sense that a lab test, for example, is difficult to call erroneous. The Indian laws however, do not validate their significance as much as they do the testimonies, unless there is a clear discrepancy between the two, in which case, the opinion of the medical expert will be taken into consideration. As a result, medical evidence is recognized in Indian law, even if it is corroborative. The medical outlook, however, does not confirm or refute the prosecution case; rather, it serves as a guideline. The author’s goal in this study article is to address medical evidence in comparison with various other kinds of evidence, and their admissibility and evidentiary value in trials.