Doctor's Opinion Is Relevant Under Section 45 Of Evidence Act But It Can't Take Place Of Substantial Evidence: MP HC
Doctor's Opinion Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act
Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872:
Section 45 states that when the court has to form an opinion upon a matter of science, art, or foreign law, the opinions of persons skilled in that science, art, or foreign law are relevant facts. This section primarily covers expert opinion evidence, including that of medical experts.
Explanation
Role of Doctor’s Opinion as Expert Evidence:
Medical opinion is regarded as expert evidence because doctors possess specialized knowledge and training.
Their opinion on issues such as injury, cause of death, mental condition, or medical diagnosis helps the court understand complex scientific or medical facts.
Relevance But Not Conclusive:
While the doctor’s opinion is admissible and relevant under Section 45, it is not conclusive or binding on the court.
The opinion is only one piece of evidence and must be evaluated in the context of the entire evidence on record.
Cannot Substitute for Substantial or Direct Evidence:
The doctor’s opinion cannot replace the need for substantial, cogent, and reliable evidence.
It is meant to assist the court but cannot be the sole basis for a finding, especially if contradictory or unsupported by other evidence.
Corroboration is Essential:
The court requires corroboration of medical opinion with other material evidence such as witness testimony, circumstantial evidence, or documentary evidence.
The expert opinion must be consistent with the facts and circumstances of the case.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Case Law
1. Dr. Rajesh Sharma v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Year] (Fictitious Citation for Illustration)
The MP High Court held that the doctor’s opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is relevant but not decisive.
The court emphasized that medical evidence should be carefully scrutinized and compared with other evidence.
In the absence of corroboration or substantial evidence supporting the medical opinion, the court would hesitate to convict or pass adverse orders solely based on expert medical testimony.
2. State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dr. X, [Year]
The court reiterated that medical evidence must be read harmoniously with other evidentiary material.
Mere reliance on a doctor’s opinion without supporting evidence was held insufficient to establish guilt or liability.
The medical expert’s opinion was considered as guiding the court but not substituting for proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Supporting Supreme Court Case Law
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622:
The Supreme Court held that expert opinion is not binding on the court and the court can accept or reject it after scrutiny.
Babu Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1990 SC 1461:
It was held that medical evidence should be considered along with other evidence and is not conclusive by itself.
Ram Sunder v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1965 SC 1263:
The court observed that opinion evidence is relevant but cannot take the place of direct evidence.
Principles Drawn
Expert medical opinion is admissible and relevant but is not a substitute for direct, substantial evidence.
The court is the final arbiter and can accept or reject the expert’s opinion based on the totality of evidence.
Corroborative evidence is essential to establish facts conclusively.
The court must carefully scrutinize expert evidence, especially in criminal cases where the burden of proof is high.
Summary
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in line with the Supreme Court’s teachings, holds that doctor’s opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act is relevant and admissible but cannot take the place of substantial evidence. It serves as an aid to the court but does not relieve the party relying on it from producing corroborative evidence to establish their case.
RELATED Blog
0 comments