Introduction;

In the case of Jillela Kotha Venkat Reddy vs. State of AP, the Telangana High Court addressed a significant question concerning the admissibility of post-mortem reports in criminal trials when the doctor who conducted the autopsy is unavailable or deceased. The case arose from an incident in 2002 where the petitioner was convicted under Section 304-Part II of the IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, following a dispute over crossing a field with a bullock cart, returned with his family and attacked the complainants, leading to fatal injuries sustained by the complainant’s husband. The trial court convicted the petitioner, sentencing him to 10 years of imprisonment, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The petitioner challenged his conviction before the High Court, primarily arguing that the prosecution’s case was flawed as the post-mortem report was not proved due to the non-examination of the doctor who conducted the autopsy. The Telangana High Court, however, ruled that under Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, the post-mortem report remains relevant and admissible even if the examining doctor is unavailable, provided another competent doctor can identify the handwriting and signature. The court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to time already served, considering the prolonged legal battle since 2002, while enhancing the fine to Rs. 2,00,000.

Arguments:

The petitioner contended that the case of the prosecution suffered from several infirmities, the primary being the failure to examine the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. The petitioner’s counsel, L. Harish, argued that in the absence of the autopsy surgeon’s testimony, the post-mortem report could not be relied upon to establish the cause of death. Furthermore, it was contended that the prosecution relied solely on interested witnesses while the supposed eyewitnesses failed to support the prosecution’s version. The petitioner also argued that the deceased had sustained injuries 15 days before the alleged assault and that the possibility of his death resulting from those prior injuries could not be ruled out. On these grounds, it was urged that the conviction of the petitioner was unsustainable, and the trial court as well as the appellate court had erred in holding the petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution, represented by the Public Prosecutor, countered these arguments by asserting that the guilt of the petitioner had been established beyond doubt through consistent evidence. It was argued that the post-mortem report remained admissible and relevant under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, as the autopsy surgeon’s unavailability did not invalidate the document’s evidentiary value. The prosecution relied on legal precedents to demonstrate that post-mortem reports can be proved through another doctor who can verify the handwriting and signature of the original examiner. Additionally, it was submitted that the sequence of events, witness testimonies, and corroborating medical evidence sufficiently established the petitioner’s culpability in the assault leading to the death of the complainant’s husband. The prosecution contended that mere non-examination of the original autopsy surgeon did not vitiate the case, especially when the medical findings remained undisputed.

Judgement:

The Telangana High Court, presided over by Justice E.V. Venugopal, rejected the petitioner’s contention that the post-mortem report was inadmissible due to the non-examination of the doctor who conducted the autopsy. The court relied on Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows statements made by a person in discharge of their professional duty to be admissible when the person is unavailable. The court further clarified that when another competent doctor, familiar with the handwriting and signature of the original autopsy surgeon, can verify the report, it stands proved in the eyes of the law. The judgment emphasized that non-examination of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem does not automatically render the report inadmissible or unreliable, especially when corroborated by other evidence. The court observed that the prosecution had indeed proved the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the conviction under Section 304-Part II of IPC was justified. However, taking into account the petitioner’s prolonged legal ordeal since 2002 and the period of incarceration already undergone, the court modified the sentence to time served while enhancing the fine amount to Rs. 2,00,000, payable within three months. In case of default, the petitioner would undergo simple imprisonment for one year.