Personal Examination of Doctor Who Prepared Medico-legal Cases Report Optional: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently ruled that a personal examination of the doctor who created a medico legal case report (MLR) was not required in order to rely on the report if the record was proven by any other doctor at the hospital. The //divided HC bench of Justices Siddharth Mridul and Rajnish Bhatnagar recently expressed this view when they affirmed the life sentence of an offender convicted of raping a two-year-old girl.

The bench has ruled that the authenticity of an MLC report can be established by a fellow physician or a member of the hospital's administrative staff who is familiar enough with the doctor's handwriting and signature to know that the report was written by the doctor who examined the patient.

“When a doctor leaves the hospital, it is unreasonable to expect the facility to monitor his whereabouts. The hospital has no right to know where the doctor is at all times. The MLC cannot be discredited only on the basis that the doctor who developed the MLC was not physically examined” retained a seat on the bench.

The major issue included the petitioner's conviction for the alleged rape of a two-year-old girl. The offender was found guilty by a special court under the POCSO Act and was given a life term in jail with hard labor and a fine of Rs 50,000.

The petitioner's attorney argued before the HC bench that the conviction was based solely on the victim's mental lack of capacity , and that the ruling should be overturned. The petitioner's legal team contended that the MLC report was not credible since the doctor who created it was not cross-examined.

Health Counsel for the State countered that the MLC report could not be thrown out because the doctor who wrote it had not been examined. The petitioner's attorney contended that a ruptured hymen is not always essential and is seldom ruptured in infants and young children, citing the medico legal report's omission of such information.

Advertisement

The Court, however, disagreed with the petitioner's attorney and pointed out that the worried doctor had departed the hospital and his whereabouts were unknown. The bench made a remark like this at the outset: “It is unreasonable to expect the hospital to keep tabs on the doctor once he has left the premises, so the MLC is an authenticated record of injuries prepared by the doctor in the regular course of business and can be relied upon by the courts even if the doctor who prepared the MLC is not examined in court and the record is proved by any other doctor. The hospital has no right to know where the doctor is at all times.”

“The MLR cannot be discredited only on the basis that the doctor who created it has not been personally examined.” Verification of MLC by a Second Physician “Good proof and unquestionable MLR can be found in the handwriting and signatures of the doctor who evaluated the patient or a member of the hospital's administrative staff who can identify the doctor's signature” the High Court bench concluded.

Advertisement

“Neither the hospital authorities nor the 10 have been accused of prejudice, and the appellant has not claimed that the MLC has been tampered with in this case. As a result, the Ld. Trial Court was well within its rights to rely on the MLC Ex. PW 7/A "also mentioned.

The bench went on to say that the child’s mother was an unreliable witness as she was a minor herself "The judicial system is strong enough to separate the chaff from the grain. The fact that PW-2 is the mother of the 2-year-old victim who was abused by the appellant, who was observed by PW-2 holding the victim kid in his lap and apologizing for his wrongdoing, cannot be overlooked in this instance. Therefore, the mother of the young kid would be tormented and traumatized in such a scenario, leading to the likelihood of her giving conflicting testimony."

"In view of the discussions hereinabove, we find no reason not to rely upon the testimony of PW 2 mother of the victim and the reliance placed by the Ld. Trial Court on the testimony of PW 2 while arriving at a conclusion that the appellant has committed the offense against the minor child as narrated by PW-2 cannot be faulted with," opined the bench.

"We have already observed that the testimony of PW 2 mother of the victim cannot be faulted with and her testimony finds support from the MIC of the victim Ex. PW 7/A," it added.

Therefore, upholding the judgment by the trial court, the HC bench mentioned in the order.



Source-Medindia