JUDGMENT - (1) (In an appeal against conviction and sentence in a murder trial after stating facts and discussing evidence and holding that the evidence did not justify conviction His Lordship proceeded.)

Before parting with the case we think it necessary to deal with certain matters of practice which call for observations. we fid that the notes of the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Narayan have not been taken on the record, though the medical officer who performed the post-mortem examination was examination was examined as a witness. We have noticed in appeals coming from orders passed by the Sessions Court for Greater Bombay that in very rare cases the notes of the post-mortem examination on the dead bodies of the victims are tendered and admitted in evidence, whereas in appeals from the Sessions Divisions in the mofussil, the notes of post-mortem examination, whenever a post-mortem has been held on a ded body, are invariably tendered and admitted in evidence. That thesenotes consitute valuable material for checking up the correctness of the medical and other evidence is undisputed. It is somewhat surprising that on an important matter of practice there should be absence of uniformity prevailing in the Courts of Session, subordinate to this Court. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, who appears before us, has fairly conceded that the notes of post-mortem examination constitute a valuable piece of evidence, which assist the Court in understanding the medical and other evidence led before the Court, but he submitted that presambly because some of the Courts in India have expressed the view that the notes of post-mortem examination are inadmissible in evidence, that the practice prevail in the City Sessions Court to exclude them from evidence. We have invitred the learned Advocates to argue the question before us and after carefully considering the rival arguments, we are of the view that notes of post-mortem examination cannot b regarded as inadmissible in evidence.

(2) Examining the question, apart from authority, we are of the view, that the contention that notes of post-mortem examination are inadmissible in evidence cannot be sustained. If the medical officer who has peformed the post-mortem examination on a dead body deposes before the Court orally anout the matters which are observed by him in the course of the post-mortem examination, and entered by him in the notes, there can be no doubt that such evidence will be admissible. It is not contended by the Assistant government Pleader that the medical officer who has made the post-mortem examination is prohibited from givig evidence about the observations made by him of the condition of the dead body, the external and internal njuries and the condition of the various organs as explanatory of the opinion formed by him. If oral evidence given by the medical officer who has examined the dead body and who has noticed its condition is admissible in law, we fail to appreciate how a written record of the observations made by the medical officer may be regarded as inadmissible in evidence. The notes of postmortem examination are but a contemporaneous ecord made by the medical officer who performed the post-mortem examination on a dead body for forming his opinion as to the cause of death. If instead of orally deposing before the Court about the individual observations and the notes are then tendered in evidence, no fault can be found with the admission of those notes on the record. We may hasten to observe that the notes of the pos-mortemexamination are of course not intended to be mechanically admitted on the record of the case. In every case when the m edical officer is examined before the Court to establish the cause of death disclosed by a post-mortem examination, he must be called upon to give evidence about the matters which have a bearing ont he questions to be decided by the Court to establish the cause of death disclosed by a post-mortem examination, he m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document