Summary
The Supreme Court allowed examination of the Nigerian doctor who conducted the first post-mortem in a trial concerning an unnatural death abroad. His opinion on the cause of death was material, while the later Indian Medical Board could give no definite conclusion. Neither the age of the trial nor an exhibited copy of the report justified refusing essential testimony. The trial court was directed to obtain the evidence through commission and/or video-conferencing and conclude the proceedings expeditiously.
Issues
- Whether prolonged pendency and an exhibited report justified refusing examination of a material medical witness.
- Whether commission or video-conferencing could secure testimony from abroad without undue inconvenience.
Provisions considered
- Section 311, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Evidence essential to a just decision must be secured through judicious exercise of the court’s powers, notwithstanding the age of the trial. (¶¶ 9–12, 14)
- Sections 284 and 285, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Commission procedures and video-conferencing were available to obtain essential testimony from the doctor abroad with minimal inconvenience. (¶¶ 13–13.3, 16)
Held
- The first post-mortem doctor’s evidence was germane because he identified a cause of death while the later Medical Board could offer no definite opinion. Merely exhibiting a copy of his report did not eliminate the need for his testimony and an opportunity for the parties to examine it. (¶ 10–11)
- Section 311 exists to secure a just decision through necessary material evidence. Its broad power must be exercised judiciously with procedural fairness; prolonged pendency alone cannot decide whether an essential witness should be examined. (¶ 9–12)
- The courts overlooked the express request for commission and video-conferencing. These offered a viable means of obtaining the foreign witness’s testimony while avoiding unreasonable delay, expense and inconvenience. (¶ 13–14)
- No opinion was expressed on guilt or the ultimate merits. The trial court remained responsible for assessing all evidence in accordance with law. (¶ 15)
Result
Appeal allowed. Orders rejecting the Section 311 application set aside and application allowed. Trial court directed to secure the doctor’s evidence by commission and/or video-conferencing and proceed expeditiously.