Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)

Ganpat Raoji Suryavanshi vs State Of Maharashtra on 21 November, 1979

L.J. 853 in the case of Ganpat Raoji Suryavanshi .vs. State of Maharashtra. In the said reported case, the Division Bench of this Court has ruled that the memorandum of post-mortem examination is not a substantive evidence by itself. It is a document containing the notes made by a ::: Uploaded on - 06/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2018 01:26:06 ::: 12 APPEAL224.04.odt Doctor contemporaneously while he is conducting the post-mortem examination. That memorandum can be used by the doctor for refreshing his memory while he is giving evidence in Court. It may be used by the defence, if necessary, for contradicting the doctor's evidence in the Court. The memorandum itself can never be substantive evidence though it can be exhibited in the Court when the doctor is examined as a witness and has deposed to the contents of that document. No court can come to a proper conclusion relating to the culpability of an accused person only on the basis of the recital of the injuries in a memorandum of the post mortem examination. Therefore, the Division Bench rules that the examination of Doctor is sine qua non for proving the post mortem report. In the present case, Doctor is not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, the contents of post mortem report, in my view, are remained to be proved.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1