The Delhi High Court partly allowed the appeal and modified the conviction of the appellant from Section 324 IPC to Section 323 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the use of a “dangerous weapon” due to lack of properly proved medical evidence.
The Court noted that medical documents such as post-mortem reports or MLCs do not constitute substantive evidence by themselves. It reiterated that only the testimony of the doctor who prepared such documents qualifies as substantive evidence. These documents can ordinarily be used only for corroboration or contradiction unless the conditions under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act are satisfied.
In the present case, the prosecution failed to establish the unavailability of the doctor who prepared the MLC, and therefore could not validly invoke Section 32(2) to prove the document through another witness. Consequently, the MLC was held to be not proved in accordance with law.
Given the absence of reliable medical evidence and non-recovery of the weapon, the Court held that the ingredients of Section 324 IPC were not made out. However, relying on the consistent testimony of the injured witness, it concluded that the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 IPC stood proved.
Accordingly, the conviction was altered to Section 323 IPC and the sentence reduced to two months’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: Mr. Dushyant Kishan Kaul, Advocate (Amicus Curiae).
For the Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State
