Medical evidence takes precedence if it completely rules out eyewitness evidence: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court recently held that while the ordinary rule is to prioritise eyewitness testimony in criminal trials, medical evidence would be given more weight if it completely rules out the version of events alleged by the witness [Sukur Ali Mondal & Ors. v. The State of West Bengal & Anr.].Justice Bibhas Ranjan De noted that in a series of Supreme Court decisions, it has been held that oral evidence by eyewitnesses generally get primacy over medical evidence since medical evidence is basically opinionative. However, the judge added that when the version of events given by a witness is totally inconsistent with the evidence given by a medical expert, then such evidence has to be appreciated from a different perspective by courts. The Court made the observation while acquitting several persons who were earlier accused of beating up a man and causing his death after an altercation at a tea shop. "In the present case, medical evidence completely rules out the prosecution version of the injuries," the Court found, in this case. .Pertinently, the prosecution and the complainant who claimed to be an eyewitness, had alleged that the accused had beaten up the deceased man, leading to his death. .However, the doctor's post-mortem report revealed that the hyoid bone was fractured, which could only occur due to strangulation or if a heavy blow is dealt to the anterior part of the neck. However, the doctor found no external injuries on the deceased man's body, thereby casting doubts on the witnesses' allegation that he was beaten up.The Court also noted that the witness did not claim that any "heavy blow" was dealt to the deceased man's neck, which could have led to the hyoid bone fracture. "Fracture of hyoid bone secondary to trauma other than strangulation is a rare incident. Hyoid bone is not susceptible to fracture owing to its inherent protection which is secured by its rare position and reinforced by its mobility ... According to Modi’s medical jurisprudence and texicology, hyoid bone and superior cornuae of the thyroid cartilage are not, as a rule, fractured by any other means other than by strangulation," the Court further explained. .The Court, therefore, acquitted the accused men, finding that the prosecution was unable to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. "In this case, evidence of witnesses disclosed assault by fists blows and kicks but surprisingly Post Mortem report did not disclose any kind of external injury. Therefore, Court can draw adverse inference to the effect that prosecution version being put forth before this Court, is not trustworthy," the Court said. Advocates Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, Moumita Pandit, Nandini Chatterjee, Jayashree Patra, Sreeparna Ghosh, Pritha Sinha, and Bhaskar Mondal appeared for the appellants (accused).Advocates Faria Hossain and Sandip Chakraborty appeared for the State. .[Read Judgment]