The opinion of the medical men is admissible upon questions within their own province such as insanity, the causes of diseases the nature of the injuries, the weapons which might have been used to cause such injuries the cause of death, the weapons might have been used in causing the death, medicines, poisons, the conditions of gestation, effects of hospitals upon the health of the neighborhood etc.[1]

As far as medical experts are concerned the Courts in India have different opinions. In certain cases they have accepted the evidence. The husband alleged his wife was pregnant at the time of marriage. The doctor who was an expert in mid-wifery had deposed the contention to be true. Though he was not gynecologist, the Court accepted his evidence.[2]

When the post mortem report is more favourable to the accused and there are discrepancies between the medical evidence and the inquest report, the benefit of discrepancies should be given to the accused by accepting the post-mortem report instead of inquest report.[3]

Medical evidence is hardly conclusive and decisive, because it is primarily an evidence of opinion and not fact.[4] In the case of Shanabhai Madhurbhai Koli Patel v. State of Gujarat[5], it was held:

        “The opinion of the doctor about age of the injuries could not be considered to be conclusive evidence as said opinion could never be exact and the prosecution evidence could not be disbelieved merely on the basis of said opinion of the doctor.”

Section 9 of the Indian evidence Act, 1872 deals with ‘facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or relevant fact’. Further, if the evidence of an expert is relevant under section 45, the ground on which such opinion is derived is also relevant under section 51. Section 46 deals with facts bearing upon opinions of experts.[6]

In Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Convenor Secretary, Orissa State Commission for women[7], it was held:

“When there is apparent conflict between the Right to Privacy of a person not to submit himself forcibly to medical examination and duty of the court to reach the truth, the court must exercise its discretion only after balancing the interests of the parties and on due consideration whether for a just decision in the matter, DNA test is eminently needed.”