Section 294 CrPC | Non-Examination Of Autopsy Doctor Not Fatal To Prosecution When Post-Mortem Report's Genuineness Is Undisputed: Karnataka High Court

"It is settled position of law that if the genuineness of any document filed by a party is not disputed by the opposite party it can be read as substantive evidence under sub-section (3) of Section 294 CrPC. Accordingly, the post-mortem report, if its genuineness is not disputed by the opposite party, the said post-mortem report can be read as substantive evidence to prove the correctness of its contents without the doctor concerned being examined." High Court of Karnataka, in a significant ruling dated October 15, 2026, held that the non-examination of the medical doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination does not prove fatal to the prosecution's case when the post-mortem report is admitted without any challenge to its authenticity. While affirming the conviction of a man for murdering his wife under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), a division bench comprising Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice B. Pramod held that where the defence does not dispute the genuineness of medical documents during trial, the post-mortem report can be read as substantive evidence under Section 294(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The appellant was convicted by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, sitting at Anekal, for fatally stabbing his wife nine times on the neck inside their home after suspecting her fidelity. Seeking to overturn the trial court's judgment in S.C. No. 5041/2022, the appellant approached the High Court primarily contending that the non-examination of the autopsy doctor, procedural delays in transmitting forensic reports, and omissions by related witnesses vitiated the trial.

The primary question before the court was whether the failure of the prosecution to examine the medical officer who authored the post-mortem report renders the trial fatal under Section 294 CrPC. The court was also called upon to determine whether delay in dispatching forensic samples under Section 293 CrPC and alleged investigative lapses automatically entitle the accused to an acquittal.

Non-Examination Of Medical Officer Not Fatal When Report Is Undisputed

The division bench rejected the appellant's primary contention that the non-examination of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination was fatal to the prosecution. The court observed that the post-mortem report was admitted and marked through the Investigating Officer, and as a public document prepared by a government doctor discharging official duty, it carried inherent evidentiary value unless specifically challenged.

The bench stressed that when the defence does not challenge the veracity or genuineness of an official injury or autopsy report during trial proceedings, the document stands proved on its own footing.

"The PM report-Ex.P4 was marked through the IO, the said PM report is issued by the Government doctor while discharging official duty and the same cannot be doubted unless there is challenge to the veracity of the same."

Reliance On Apex Court Precedent And High Court Full Bench Ruling

In reinforcing this legal proposition, the High Court relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Akhtar and Others v. State of Uttaranchal, which established that undisputed post-mortem reports can be read as substantive evidence under Section 294(3) CrPC without the authoring medical officer stepping into the witness box.

The bench further drew support from the Full Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Boraiah alias Shekar v. State by Ramanagaram Police, which authoritatively resolved that post-mortem reports filed under Section 294(1) CrPC whose genuineness is not disputed by the accused can be read as substantive evidence.

"In view of the above, the non-examination of the medical doctor, by itself, is not fatal to the prosecution case."

Section 293 CrPC Permits Admissibility Of Forensic Reports Without Expert Examination

Addressing the appellant’s challenge against the non-examination of the forensic scientific officer, the High Court held that statutory exemptions under Section 293 CrPC govern such official reports. The bench pointed out that Section 293 CrPC explicitly permits reports issued under the hand of designated Government scientific experts, including Directors of State Forensic Science Laboratories, to be used directly as evidence without calling the author.

The bench added that mere administrative delay in obtaining or dispatching the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report does not dismantle the prosecution's case when ocular and circumstantial evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Defective Investigation Cannot By Itself Enure To The Accused's Benefit

The court also dismissed the appellant's arguments pointing to procedural lapses and delays in the police investigation. Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Edakkandi Dineshan alias P. Dineshan and Others v. State of Kerala, the bench reiterated that the benefit of defective investigation cannot be extended to the accused on that ground alone.

The judges observed that courts are tasked with independently evaluating the evidentiary material on record, including ocular testimony and medical certificates, notwithstanding procedural shortcomings by investigating agencies.

"It is well settled that defective or faulty investigation, by itself, will not enure to the benefit of the accused. The Court is required to independently evaluate the evidence adduced by the prosecution, including the testimony of eyewitnesses and the medical evidence, notwithstanding any lapses in the course of investigation."

Quality And Intrinsic Worth Of Evidence Prevails Over Quantity Of Witnesses

Examining the reliability of the eyewitnesses who were relatives of the deceased, the bench held that relationship alone does not render testimonies unreliable or interested. Relying on the Apex Court’s ruling in Ajai alias Ajju and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the bench emphasized that criminal courts must evaluate the intrinsic worth and quality of evidence rather than the quantity of witnesses examined.

The court noted that the minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, who rushed to the room upon hearing the screams of the deceased, did not shake the core prosecution narrative.

Failure To Explain Dwelling House Homicide Under Section 313 CrPC Attracts Adverse Inference

The bench attached strong significance to the fact that the accused and the deceased were together inside their dwelling house immediately prior to the incident. Because the circumstances of the brutal stabbing occurred within the dwelling house, the facts were within the special knowledge of the accused.

The bench noted that the failure of the accused to offer any plausible explanation during his statement under Section 313 CrPC regarding how his wife sustained nine fatal neck wounds served as a decisive incriminating link against him.

Appellate Court Finds No Infirmity In Section 302 IPC Conviction

Finding the prosecution's chain of evidence complete, supported by motive, eyewitness testimony, and homicidal medical findings, the High Court concluded that the trial court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC called for no appellate interference. Consequently, the division bench dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment.

The Karnataka High Court affirmed the conviction and life imprisonment awarded to the appellant, reiterating that the non-examination of an autopsy doctor is not fatal to the prosecution when the post-mortem report's genuineness is unchallenged under Section 294 CrPC. The ruling reinforces that statutory dispensations under Sections 293 and 294 CrPC allow courts to rely on undisputed medical and scientific documents as substantive evidence.

Date of Decision: 15 October 2026