Medical evidence

Record revealed that the complainant did not inform the police that the offence (sodomy) had been committed with his son, the deceased

In fact, the police only included the offence under Section 377, P.P.C., subsequently after the Chemical Examiner's report arrived

Moreover, Medical Officer stated in the postmortem report, issued under his hand, that there were no physical signs or symptoms of sodomy

Medical Officer recorded that no semen, nor blood, faecal matter or lubricant was found around anus, and no laceration on mucus membrane inside the anus

Anus was not prolapsed

Medical Officer, however, reserved his final opinion until receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner in regards the internal and external anal swabs he had taken

Moreover, it was only upon the receipt of the report which found human sperm on the deceased's shalwar and on the internal anal swabs that the Medical Officer concluded that sodomy had been committed with the deceased

Appellant's DNA, however, was not compared with the DNA in the sperm on the deceased's shalwar and internal anal swabs

Keeping in view that the instant case was one where there was no direct evidence, where there were otherwise missing links in the chain of circumstantial evidence and where the appellant's DNA was not sent for comparison with the DNA of the sperm found on the articles sent for examination, it would therefore be unsafe to rely solely on the presence of human sperm on the internal anal swabs and shalwar of the deceased to maintain a capital sentence

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

In her deposition, Woman Medical Officer stated that upon examination she observed scratch marks on both sides of the victim's neck

Anal swabs of the victim were obtained by the Surgery Department, sealed and handed over to the police for analysis by the Forensic Science Agency

Victim was thereafter referred to Medical Officer

According to his testimony, upon clinical examination Medical Officer noted scratch marks on both sides of the victim's neck just below the jawline, as well as visible bruises in the perianal region, accompanied by fissures at the 5, 6, and 8 o'clock positions, though without active bleeding

On arrest of the petitioner-convict, he was produced before Medical Officer on 26.09.2019, who obtained his blood sample for DNA analysis and subsequently referred him to a urologist

As per the statement of urologist, upon medical examination the petitioner-convict was found to be capable of performing sexual intercourse

Investigating Officer took into possession the clothes of the victim, including his trousers bearing semen stains and deposited the same in the Forensic Science Agency on 14.06.2019 along with the DNA blood samples of the victim

Blood samples of the petitioner-convict, obtained by the Medical Officer, were deposited by Police Officer in the Forensic Science Agency on 07.10.2019

According to the Forensic Science Agency Report, seminal material was detected on the stained section of the victim's trousers

Furthermore, as per Forensic Science Agency Report, the DNA profile developed from the sperm fraction of the trousers matched the DNA profile obtained from the blood sample of the petitioner-convict

Buccal swab standard of the victim also matched correspondingly, thus eliminating any possibility of contamination or error

Forensic Science Agency Reports provided strong forensic corroboration of the minor victim's account, conclusively connecting the petitioner-convict with the commission of the offence

Petition being devoid of merit was dismissed, in circumstances.

Only blackening of margins of entry wound could occur from a long-range fire shot and even when body of victim was covered with clothes because blackening of margins of entry wound could occur due to touching of bullet (a boiling object) with the skin at the entry wound of victim

There was no burning, charring and tattooing and there was only blackening of margins of entry wound of deceased which could occur even in the case of a long range shot

Medial evidence fully supported ocular account of prosecution

Evidence of prosecution was proved through confidence inspiring and trustworthy evidence of prosecution witnesses which was fully supported by the medical evidence brought on the record

Accused was arrested at the spot immediately after the occurrence and was handed over to the police

Supreme Court declined to interfere in conviction and sentence awarded by High Court to the accused

Prosecution had proved its case against accused beyond shadow of any doubt who failed to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence or any illegality or material irregularity in judgment passed by High Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Medical evidence is only supportive evidence, which may confirm the ocular account with regard to receipt of injury,nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it would not identify the assailant.

As per postmortem report, there were eight (08) entry and eight (08) exit wounds on the body of the deceased and all the entry wounds on the body of the deceased were of the same size i.e., 1/4 x 1/4 inches, which fact showed that one firearm was used in this case to commit the murder of deceased and the occurrence was committed by one person

No specific injury was attributed to petitioner and a joint role of causing firearm injuries was attributed to petitioner and co-accused, therefore, it was not determinable in this case that as to whether the said injuries on the body of the deceased were caused by petitioner or co-accused, which fact created a serious doubt in the prosecution case, hence the petitioner was liable to be acquitted while extending him the benefit of doubt

Circumstances establishedthat the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the petitioner beyond the shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the ocular account with regard to receipt of injury(s), nature of the injury(s), kind of weapon used in the commission of offence, but is not able to identify the assailant(s).

Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, as a result of which, son of complainant got hit on different parts of his body and died on the spot

Medical evidence may confirm direct or ocular-account, if any, with regard to set of injuries, kind of weapon allegedly used in commission of an offence and at least nature of injuries

However, in present case, when ocular-account furnished by alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence was not confidence inspiring, then evidentiary value of medical evidence qua guilt of appellants as a sole piece of corroboratory evidence could not be given much weight and worth

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Medical evidence confirms the direct or ocular account, if any, with regard to the set of injuries, kind of weapon allegedly used in the commission of offence and at least the nature of injuries

However, medical evidence qua the guilt of the accused/ respondents as a sole piece of corroboratory evidence could not be given much weight.

Other pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution, if disbelieved and discarded, the conviction of the accused could not be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone.

Medical evidence produced by the prosecution was not of much avail to the prosecution because the murder in issue had remained unwitnessed and, thus, the medical evidence could not point an accusing finger towards the appellant implicated in this case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Medical evidence was mere supportive/ confirmatory type of evidence; it could tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury, duration of the injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it could not tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury; therefore, same could not provide any corroboration to the case of prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Medical evidence by its nature and character cannot recognize a culprit in case of an unobserved incidence.

Medical evidence can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury, duration of the injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury; therefore, same neither can provide any corroboration nor is of any help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the prosecution version about locale and nature of injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence and the duration between death and postmortem but does not provide the identity of the assassin.

Medical evidence may confirm the ocular account with regard to seat of injuries and its duration, nature of injuries and kind of weapon used for causing such injury but it cannot connect the accused with the commission of crime.

Medical evidence is merely an opinion of an expert and is confirmatory in nature and not corroboratory except those observations of the Medico-Legal Officer, which are based on physical examination, which serve as a corroboratory piece of evidence and that at best would confirm the ocular account with regard to the seat and nature of injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence, but cannot identify the accused.

Medical evidence only indicates receipt of injuries, the kind of weapon used, and the nature of injuries, but it does not name the assailant.

As per record, a stellate (star-shaped) gunshot wound on the forehead could be either suicidal, as the shape was often caused by gases expanding from the firearm's muzzle, which was common in contact wounds, a method used in suicides

Key factors to determine if it was a suicide or not, solely the wound's appearance was not sufficient but also its location, such as the forehead, which was a common suicide site, along with the presence of a weapon, ballistic evidence, and the victim's own history or circumstances

Circumstances and history of the individual were also critical in assessing the possibility of suicide

In short, a stellate wound on the forehead was significant but required a comprehensive forensic investigation to determine if it was a suicide

In this case when the accused/appellant dared to inform the Medical Officer as well as the investigator, then both were obliged to examine the dead body thoroughly and first duty was to examine the hands of deceased lady so as to find out any gunshot residue (GSR) in the form of soot over it

Not examining the hands by Medical Officer, investigator and the Medical Officer who later conducted postmortem examination was a criminal negligence and thereby truth was altered at the cost of slackness or deliberate askance

Moreover, it was the duty to be discharged even in terms if such GSR was not on the hands of deceased, it could then help to rule out the possibility of suicide to some extent

Place of occurrence was also required to be examined keenly, so as to track any other evidence available at the site, but prosecution agency was not serious to dig out such fact

Thus, it remained an unanswered theory whether, it was a suicide or homicide which created a doubt in prosecution story and benefit of doubt always leans in favour of accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Qatl-i-amd, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint, causing damage or loss of fifty rupees or more through mischief, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Medical evidence

Inconsequential when ocular account doubtful

Accused was charged that he along with his co-accused persons committed murder of the father of complainant

Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of deceased, observed many injuries on his dead body

Said injuries were not in line with the specific roles attributed to the appellant

Medical evidence was only asupporting piece of evidence and relevant only if the ocular account inspired confidence which was not the situation in the case and the murder in issue had remained un-witnessed

Thus, the medical evidence could not point an accusing finger towards the appellant implicated in this case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Where all the other pieces of evidence relied upon by the prosecution have been disbelieved and discarded by the Court, the conviction of accused cannot be upheld on the basis of medical evidence alone.

Medical evidence could validate the version of the prosecution regarding the location and nature of injury, the type of weapon involved in the incident and the time elapsed between death and postmortem examination

However, it did not establish the identity of the perpetrator.

Qatl-i-amd, causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, wrongful confinement, hurt by rash or negligent act, criminal intimidation, abetment, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Medical evidence

Scope

Accused were charged for committing murder of the nephew of the complainant by firing

Medical evidence, at its best, served only as a piece of supporting evidence

Medical evidence may confirm the fact of receipt of injuries, their nature and the kind of weapon used in the occurrence; however, it can never, by itself, establish the identity of the assailant

Sole reliance on medical evidence, therefore, could not suffice to hold that it was the accused who committed the murder of the deceased

In the present case, the Medical Officer was unable to specify the precise kind of weapon used in the commission of the offence, nor could he categorically correlate the injuries with any particular weapon allegedly recovered from the accused

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Medical evidence is primarily used to determine the nature of the injuries sustained, the cause of death and the possible kind of weapon used

However, it is equally established that medical evidence, by its very nature, cannot identify or establish the identity of the assailant.

In instant case, the Medical Officer in his deposition had deposed that the postmortem report expressed surface wounds and injuries

In this case, the Medical Officer only mentioned the inside of the neck and nothing else, whereas the neck structure and detail of interior examination was not mentioned in postmortem report while the size of the wound was 12cm X 5cm

So the Medical Officer should have explained the seat of injuries upon all organs, but nothing available on record in such regard

Appeal against conviction filed by accused/appellant was allowed, in circumstances.

Conviction cannot sustain on the basis of medical evidence alone.

According to the testimony of the Woman Medical Officer, rigor mortis and postmortem lividity were both present on the body at the time of examination

However, during cross-examination, the Woman Medical Officer deposed that she was unable to determine the time between the occurrence of injuries and death

Rather, Woman Medical Officer confined herself to merely noting the time of examination of the dead body, without making any concrete effort to assess the probable time of death or the timing of the injuries

Postmortem examination, as per the report, commenced on 30-03-2019 at 2:00 p.m. and was completed at 3:30 p.m.

If rigor mortis had already developed by that time, it casted serious doubt on the prosecution's claim that death occurred at 12:30 p.m. on the same day

Presence of rigor mortis at the time of postmortem (2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.) suggested that death might have occurred significantly earlier than 12:30 p.m., as claimed

Thus, if the presence of rigor mortis at the time of examination was accepted, than the same undermined the prosecution's asserted timeline and created a serious doubt regarding the exact time of death

Such inconsistency was material and would go to the root of the prosecution's case, thereby entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Medial evidence corroborated the prosecution version that deceased died due to firearm injury, so the Court below rightly convicted the accused

It was alleged by defence counsel that medical evidence did not support the ocular evidence of the prosecution, however this plea had got no plausible essence because as per prosecution version the accused fired with 12 bore rifle when the deceased was performing ablution

Hence, in such a situation receiving injuries at neck and arm was not strange rather natural because single fire with 12 bore rifle might cause hit of pellets at different parts of body

Merely non-mentioning of injury of the deceased at his arm in the FIR or in the statements of prosecution witnesses was not fatal because witnesses in such panic situation were not expected to minutely observe all the wounds of the body

Moreover, witnesses were not confronted with reference to the medical reports

Under Art.140 of Qanun-e- Shahadat only the discrepancies which were contradicted by referring to relevant document/evidence to the witness could be considered as a contradiction, so it could safely be concluded that medical evidence was also in line, nexus and consonance with the ocular evidence whereas in the injury form prepared by police the injury on the hand of deceased had also been mentioned

Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances.

Medical evidence furnished by Female Medical Officer, who conducted the autopsy on the dead body of minor deceased, conclusively proved that the death of the minor was homicidal in nature

Cause of death was asphyxia due to pressure on both nostrils and compression of blood vessels, leading to cerebral insufficiency

Post-mortem findings were consistent with the manner of death described in the confessional statement of the appellant and further strengthened the prosecution's version

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the appellant, however, the High Court in its well-reasoned judgment had expressly held that the medical evidence on record did not support the confessional statement of the appellant insofar as the allegation of rape upon the minor deceased was concerned

Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 376, P.P.C., were set aside

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this aspect may justly be treated as a mitigating circumstance for the commutation of the sentence of death into imprisonment for life

Consequently, the appeal was partly allowed.

Medical officer had categorically mentioned that crime number was not mentioned in the police letter nor CNIC number of the identifiers of the deceased's body were mentioned in the postmortem report

In the postmortem proforma, there was no mention with regard to sodomy

No chemical report with regard to the sodomy was produced

Admittedly, in the postmortem report there was no mention of the specific weapon, with which the head of deceased was allegedly cut off

Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.

Medico-ocular conflict regarding number of injuries sustained by deceased is fatal to prosecution case.

Accused was alleged to have abducted and raped a minor girl with the help of three co-accused persons; one stood acquitted and two absconded

Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to imprisonment for life

Validity

Mother of abductee, her brothers, and other persons who allegedly accompanied the complainant in the process of recovery of abductee were not produced by prosecution

Old lady who allegedly informed father of the victim girl was a material witness and it amounted to withholding of best available evidence

Adverse inference within the meaning of Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 was drawn against prosecution that had the persons been produced in witness box they would not have supported prosecution's case

Testimony of lady doctor, in absence of any other evidence of unimpeachable character, was not sufficient to prove that sexual intercourse was committed with victim girl by accused

Vaginal swabs taken from victim girl were sent to Chemical examiner after a delay of three weeks for which no explanation, much less, plausible, had been furnished by prosecution

Accused though was examined for potency, however, his semen had not been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for matching with the semen stained swab obtained from victim girl

Positive Chemical Examiner Report was of no help to prosecution

Supreme Court set aside conviction and sentence awarded to accused and acquitted him of the charge, as prosecution failed to prove guilt through cogent and confidence inspiring evidence

Appeal was allowed.

Medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm prosecution's version with regard to receipt of injury, nature of injury, kind of weapon used in occurrence but it cannot identify the assailant.

At most medical evidence is a supporting piece of evidence which may confirm ocular evidence with regard to receipt of injury, its locale, kind of weapon used for causing injury, duration between the injury and death

Medical evidence cannot tell the name of the assailant.

Medical evidence is always considered to be confirmatory in nature, which only confirms the locale, nature and kind of weapon, but does not in any manner identify or directly relates the accused with the murder of the deceased person.

Medical evidence is not the substitute of direct evidence rather is only a source of corroboration in respect of nature and set of injury, the kind of weapon used, the duration between the injury and death and may confirm the ocular account to a limited extent but cannot establish the identity of the accused or connect him with the commission of offence.

As per statement of Female Medical Officer, not onlymere penetration to the hymen was found, but it was observed by said witness that there was excessive vaginal bleeding

Although Female Medical Officer had been cross-examined to the extent that she did not examine the said victim

Said witness was neither relative to the complainant nor inimical to the accused, therefore, it was impossible to say that she issued a false medical certificate

Even otherwise, the said witness was cross-examined by the defence but failed to impeach her credibility

Potency test was also performed on the accused/appellant and the report produced by Medical Officer confirmed that the accused was an adult well oriented in time, place and a person whose age was mentioned as twenty-eight years

Accused was arrested eight days after the occurrence

Under such circumstances, no seminal material was found on the Shalwar of the accused and it was, therefore, not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis

Rape having been established, was it then necessary to conduct a DNA test to determine that the semen retrieved from the victim's body and shalwar was of the appellant

However, it was not necessary that such DNA testing was required under the circumstances

Moreover, DNA testing was not a requirement by the law

Circumstances established that the prosecution had proved its case against the accused beyond shadow of doubt, however, due to some mitigating circumstances, the death sentence was altered to imprisonment for life

With the said modification in the sentence of appellant, the appeal was dismissed.

Medical evidence is only used for confirmation of ocular evidence regarding cause of death, time of occurrence etc. but medical evidence itself does not constitute any corroboration qua the identity of accused person to prove his culpability.

Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, causing mutalahima, ghairjaifah-hashimah, munaq-qilah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly

Appreciation of evidence

Appeal against acquittal

Medical evidence

Scope

Ocular account disbelieved

Accused-appellants were charged for committing murder of the nephew and son of complainant and caused injuries to complainant and his brother through firing

Medical evidence mayconfirm the direct or ocular account, if any, with regard to the set of injuries, kind of weapon allegedly used in the commission of offence and at least the nature of injuries

However, in the instant case when the ocular evidence was disbelieved then evidentiary value of medical evidence qua the guilt of the accused/respondents as a sole piece of corroboratory evidence could not be given much weight

Appeal against acquittal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Medical evidence may confirm direct or ocular account, if any, with regard to set of injuries, kind of weapon allegedly used in the commission of an offence or at least the nature of injuries

When ocular account furnished by a witness is not up to the mark, then evidentiary value of medical evidence qua guilt of the appellant as a sole piece of corroboratory evidence cannot be given much weight.

Medical evidence only offers details about the weapon used and the number and nature of injuries.

Medical evidence is confirmatory in nature and in case of trustworthy and confidence inspiring eye-witness account the same plays little role, but when such ocular account either fails or the same is not available, then in such circumstances of a particuter case the medical evidence plays a decisive role.

Medical evidence may confirm the direct or ocular account, if any, with regard to the set of injuries, kind of weapon allegedly used in the commission of offence and at least the nature of injuries

Moreover, when the occurrence is undoubtedly unseen and un-witnessed then evidentiary value of medical evidence qua the guilt of the accused as a sole piece of corroboratory evidence cannot be given much weight.

Medical evidence is a type of supporting evidence, which may confirm the prosecution version with regard to receipt of injury, nature of the injury, kind of weapon used in the occurrence but it cannot identify the assailant.

Medical evidence is mere supportive/ confirmatory type of evidence, it can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury, duration of the injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury; therefore, same can neither provide any corroboration nor is of any help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

Medical evidence may have confirmed the ocular account/circumstantial evidence with regard to the receipt of injury and kind of weapon but it cannot connect the accused with the commission of crime.

Medical evidence leads to tell the cause of death but does not provide the detail about the actual culprit.

As per story of prosecution, firstly appellant and thereafter co-accused made three repeated fire shots each, which landed on the left side of chest of deceased

In such scenario, a man could not remain static after receipt of single pistol fire shot on the left side of his chest and as such other eight entry wounds at the same locale were not possible, that fact also made the prosecution story highly doubtful in nature

Circumstances established that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against the appellant beyond any shadow of doubt

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Medical evidence is mere supportive/confirmatory type of evidence; it can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury, but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury.

Medical evidence can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury; therefore, same neither can provide any corroboration nor was of any help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case

Appeal against conviction was allowed, accordingly.

Medical evidence can tell about locale, nature, magnitude of injury and kind of weapon used for causing injury but it cannot tell about identity of the assailant who caused the injury, therefore, same neither can provide any corroboration nor is of any help to the prosecution in peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.