Hello readers! My name is Kruti Brahmbhatt. This article explains the difference between two crucial forms of evidence: ocular evidence and medical evidence. We shall also discuss the governing provisions, points of comparison, integration of this evidence, etc. This article will be a complete guide for you.
Introduction
Despite the mismatch between medical evidence and ocular evidence, the Supreme Court didn’t set aside the murder conviction. Surprising and strange, right? Not really.
We are talking about the case of Sri Halesh vs. the State of Karnataka (2024), in which Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal dealt with an unlawful assembly case.
Let us understand them in depth to understand the reasons behind the court’s decision. What is ocular evidence? Ocular evidence is oral evidence; it is a direct presentation of what a witness has seen, felt, heard, smelled, or tasted. When the witness presents oral evidence in front of the court based on experience and observation, it is ocular evidence.
Moving ahead now, as the name suggests, medical evidence is the opinion of a medical expert. It is more corroborative evidence.
Both play an essential role in criminal cases, but often, they conflict or complement each other. This article explains the vital legal role and complexities of these forms of evidence.
Let us begin with understanding the governing provisions of evidence.
Governing provisions of ocular evidence and medical evidence
The real game begins regarding the admissibility of ocular and medical evidence, governed by the Bharatiya Sakshya Abhiniyam (BSA), 2023.
The ocular evidence is given under Sections 54 and 55 of the BSA, while medical evidence is admissible under Sections 39 and 40 of the BSA.
Ocular evidence
The admissibility of ocular evidence means that all the facts of the case may be proved by oral evidence. There is only one exception: the contents of documents; they do not require any oral evidence.
Take an example for a better understanding of the admissibility of the ocular evidence: Imagine Xen met a car accident with Yena, where Pavan, Queen and Ryan were witnesses to this accident. Now, Pavan, Queen and Ryan shall give statements about what they saw, including the speed of the vehicles, traffic around, the signals, and the behaviour and state of the drivers.
This information, known as the ocular evidence, is vital to determine the parties’ liability.
Medical evidence
While ocular evidence is directly admissible, medical evidence becomes admissible as expert opinion. The court may take expert opinions whenever the court needs to form an opinion in matters relating to foreign law, science, art, or anything requiring special knowledge.
But remember, it is just an opinion; the court is not bound to decide the case based on their opinion.
Generally, medical evidence includes X-rays, Biopsies, blood tests, and MRI scans. Etc.
Since we now understand the legal basis of the evidence, it’s time to apply it to practical scenarios.
Understanding the role and limitations of ocular evidence in courtrooms
Imagine Naresh was a shopkeeper living in a small town in Gujarat. One day, while Naresh was opening his shop in the morning, two people (Vivek and Sanjeev) argued nearby. In no time, it turned into physical violence and chaos. The street was fully crowded, and a person named Vivek got a head injury, causing instant death.
At this point, several witnesses were present. Everyone was shocked, and by that time, the police had arrived.
Here comes the police’s role in collecting statements from witnesses (which shall be the ocular evidence in court).
- A newspaper seller boy said that he saw both of them fighting and arguing with each other.
- One fruit-selling lady named Deepa saw Vivek pushing Sanjeev while Sanjeev had an iron rod in his hand.
- Naresh also stated that he saw both of them fighting aggressively, but couldn’t see how Vivek got the head injury.
The police recorded the statements, collected the CCTV footage of Naresh’s shop, and photographed the crime scene. They also recorded the search and seizure on the crime scene (as per Section 105 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). Further, the police investigated the crime scene, forming the chain of events.
Now comes the most crucial part: the Trial. The prosecution’s case was based entirely on ocular evidence from the crime scene. However, minor changes were made in the testimonies of the witnesses because a few months had passed. Their testimonies still pointed towards Sanjeev’s guilt.
This leads us to the discussions of limitations and challenges of ocular evidence. Ocular evidence is highly reliable, but only if they have clear vision, good memory and are unbiased. The significant limitations of ocular evidence are:
- Each present witness has a different perspective towards the event. There is a high chance that the witnesses may assume certain events. For example, Deepa, looking at the iron rod in Sanjeev’s head, believes that he would have caused Vivek’s head injury.
- Even bad lighting, distance and some obstruction may affect the witness’s observations.
- Another major limitation is the memory problem. Since the trial was conducted months after the incident, a few witnesses might have forgotten the event or, under the stress of giving testimony, misspeaking about a few significant incidents.
- The witnesses are often biased towards one party or even pressured to give the wrong testimony.
However, in the case of Pruthviraj Jayantibhai Vanol vs. Dinesh Dayabhai Vala & Others (2021), the Supreme Court said that the courts should maintain a balance while evaluating eyewitness testimony. Ocular evidence is the best evidence unless there are reasons to doubt it.
The court also said that it may be disbelieved only when there is a gross contradiction between ocular and medical evidence, and medical evidence is strong enough to make ocular testimony improbable.
Now, coming back to the crime scene, all the eyewitnesses are confirming the fight and violence, but are they enough to prove anyone guilty?
Undoubtedly not. Here, we understand the medical evidence at the crime scene.
Understanding the role and limitations of medical evidence in courtrooms
After Vivek’s death, his body was taken to the hospital for a post-mortem examination. It was time to collect medical evidence. The autopsy report found that Vivek had a severe head injury that caused his death. The report had all the necessary details like:
- Nature of the injury
- Angle or area impacted
- The probable weapon used such as an iron rod
- Time of death, etc.
In the trial stage, the doctor’s opinion was taken as an expert opinion (medical evidence) based on the autopsy report. The Doctor explained the post-mortem results, consistent with the ocular evidence in this case.
Despite of high reliability of medical evidence, they are not without limitations. The significant limitations of medical evidence are:
- Many times, experts differ in their interpretations. The same report findings can be interpreted in various ways, leading to a conflict of opinions.
- The medical evidence is complex and highly technical, making it difficult for the courts to understand it without an expert opinion. This can be a time-consuming process, delaying justice.
- If mistakes are made in collecting or preserving medical evidence, questions are raised about its credibility. For example, police may mislabel it, or contamination of samples may lead to unreliable results.
- The most important limitation is that most of the reports rely on technological tools and equipment, which can be highly inaccurate and lead the courts to incorrect conclusions.
However, in the Indian legal system, medical opinion is advisory. A similar case was held in the case of Darbara Singh vs. the State of Punjab (2012), wherein the Supreme Court said that the courts shall give importance to ocular evidence over the opinion of medical experts. The Supreme Court in the case of Dayal Singh vs. State of Uttaranchal (2012) explained the role of expert opinion and said that the primary purpose of expert opinion is to aid the court in making the final decision.
Now that we have understood the roles of both evidence, we know that the court in Vivek’s injury would corroborate the medical evidence with the ocular evidence and give a fair and just verdict.
Let us compare ocular and medical evidence
You might have an idea about Ocular and Medical evidence. Then, it is natural to question who holds much weight in court. When, why, and by whom must these forms of evidence be presented before the court?
Let me simplify it for you. We’ll compare both and try to understand which is stronger and in which instances they are used.
| Aspects | Ocular Evidence | Medical Evidence |
| Definition | Ocular evidence is the statements of witnesses who have experienced the incident through their senses. | Medical evidence is the medical reports and opinions of the medical professional. |
| Source of evidence | Given by any person present at the scene or who has experienced it. | Given by Doctors, medical or forensic experts. |
| Nature of evidence | Ocular evidence is based on personal experience and observation, which makes it subjective. | Medical evidence is based on scientific analysis, which is objective. |
| Weightage in courts | Ocular evidence is a strong kind of evidence; a court shall decide based on such a witness. | Medical evidence needs to be corroborated and must establish a chain of events. |
| Role in criminal cases | Ocular evidence shall help the court to convict the victim. | Medical evidence just provides scientific validation to specific injuries and discovers the cause of death and other medical facts. |
| Challenges | Ocular evidence can be influenced by memory, bias, and perception and may sometimes be inconsistent. | Expert interpretation is needed to understand medical evidence; it cannot be conclusive evidence. |
| Examples | An eyewitness to murder or robbery. | Autopsy reports or toxicology reports. |
How are ocular and medical evidence used in real-world cases
Do ocular evidence and medical evidence reach the same conclusion? Well, not absolutely, but both play a crucial role in understanding the situation and the facts. The decision becomes difficult when they contradict each other.
Although ocular evidence has a more excellent evidentiary value, medical evidence may make it improbable. In the evidence evaluation process, when medical evidence disproves all the possibilities of ocular evidence, then the ocular evidence may not be relied upon.
In cases where the conviction is based on the sole testimony of the witness, which is discredited by the medical evidence, then such ocular evidence is not trustworthy.
The same was discussed in the case of Ram Narain Singh vs. the State of Punjab (1975). The Supreme Court held that the entire case shall be discredited if the prosecution’s evidence is entirely inconsistent with the medical evidence or any ballistic expert. Such a significant inconsistency is enough to prove the fundamental defect in the case.
However, in many cases, even if the medical evidence does not match the ocular evidence, the courts depend on the ocular evidence to make the final decision. The court is not liable to give weight to the doctor’s opinion.
The court often adopted a harmonious integration of the evidence. A similar was observed in the case of the State of Haryana vs. Bhagirath and others (1999), where the Supreme Court held that where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence, the ocular evidence prevails.
Further, in the recent case of Kallu @Brijesh Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that ocular evidence should be disbelieved only when medical evidence rules out all possibilities of actual ocular evidence. The court also highlighted that a thorough examination of both types of evidence should be ensured for a fair trial.
With this, you must have a fair understanding of ocular and medical evidence. Now, we shall explore how technology is used in evidence collection.
Role of technology in evidence collection
Now that we have discussed and understood much about ocular and medical evidence, let us discuss evidence collection. In ocular evidence, the witnesses present testify, but things get complex when it comes to medical evidence.
Here, technology has brought advancement, especially in the forensic domain. Using technology, the agencies can increase their efficiency and accuracy. The following are the branches of forensics used in the collection of evidence:
Biometrics and DNA analysis
When someone talks about DNA analysis, we usually understand it as a blood sample analysis, but it even includes facial scanning and recognition, fingerprint analysis, DNA profiling, etc. This process helps the investigating authority reach conclusive evidence. There are hardly any chances of incorrectness, and it allows the courts to convict the criminal.
The courts rely on and admit such evidence, which is why the investigation authorities widely use it.
Monitoring and surveillance
We often see CCTV footage and videos of criminals where the crime scene is recorded or they are found hiding or running away. For example, we saw Saif’s criminal entering the building and running away after committing the crime. The CCTV camera’s footage helped gather strong evidence, leaving no room for doubt.
CCTV cameras and drones are usually widely used for constant monitoring and surveillance. Drones are used to monitor crowds and search vast areas.
How is the collected evidence corroborated?
Do you remember the Shafeeq murder case? A young man from Kerala was killed in a planned attack.
An interesting point here is the role of evidence. Many eyewitnesses were present at the scene; however, their testimony had minor inconsistencies, which raised serious doubts in the case.
At this point, CCTV footage was used to confirm the crime scene and the role of the accused. The camera captured each detail and minor movement, giving visuals to movements before and after the crime. This cleared which weapon was used and who was present at the crime scene, showing the complete sequence of events.
Now, how would you confirm that the accused’s act caused the death? Here comes the role of DNA analysis, the wounds on his body, the bloodstains found on the clothes and the mobile location confirming the accused’s presence at the crime scene.
By combining technology with ocular and medical evidence, the court can be sure that the accused is the real criminal. We have discussed criminal cases and both forms of evidence a lot now, but remember, evidence is not just about it.
Discussing ocular and medical evidence in civil cases
So far, we can understand the role of ocular and medical evidence in criminal cases, but are they just meant for criminal cases?
No, ocular and medical evidence are equally crucial in civil cases. Both kinds of evidence are essential in determining the parties’ liability and damages.
Let’s understand it one by one.
Regarding ocular evidence in civil cases, the witnesses help prove the negligence, fault and chain of events. Now that property disputes are common, let me explain using a property matter example.
In a claim of ownership or possession between two families, ocular witnesses such as neighbours, nearby residents, or friends can testify about the possession and the extended time. This testimony becomes crucial in proving adverse possession claims.
Also, ocular evidence is used to verify the document and the parties to the contract or agreements.
Similarly, medical evidence is used in civil cases to prove personal injury, medical negligence, insurance disputes, and disability claims. The medical report or expert opinion can establish the extent of damage, injury, or harm.
Imagine a person who wants to claim injury and damage. Here, the eyewitness can only discuss the incident, but the medical expert and report can prove the intensity of the injuries.
Moving ahead, now, we shall discuss the challenges arising while admitting evidence.
Challenges in admitting evidence
Everything sounds good so far. However, admitting evidence presents many challenges, such as legal and ethical issues, the burden of proof, and the challenge of expert opinions in court.
- Memory, stress, and suggestive questions influence the reliability of eyewitnesses, and the courts need to evaluate their credibility. Eyewitnesses’ biases and prejudices need to be identified and addressed. This is a significant challenge because imagine a witness incorrectly identifying a suspect. Such witnesses might misguide the court.
- While discussing the challenges of medical evidence, it is important to ensure that medical reports are of a legal standard. There is a high chance that the medical reports may be challenged if they are not obtained following proper legal standards and protocols or are not documented well.
- It is also important to get the patients’ consent before conducting their examinations or tests. Giving unbiased opinions is against ethical considerations, and it risks patient privacy and medical ethics. Put yourself in a Doctor’s position and ask yourself: Will you be able to provide an impartial opinion on a patient’s health when you know it might harm the patient’s case?
- The burden of proof in both forms of evidence is on the party presenting the evidence. For example, the prosecution needs to prove the defendant’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt” in a criminal case, whereas, in a civil case, a personal injury must be proved by a “preponderance of probability” by the plaintiff.
Looking at these challenges, you might be thinking about or expecting changes in evidence law. Here is a quick idea about the future directions of evidence law.
What developments can one expect in evidence law?
We must genuinely admit that more developments and improvements in evidence law are needed for an efficient and fair justice system.
As we have discussed the limitations of ocular evidence, we need more straightforward guidelines to overcome perception errors, memory issues, and biases. While admitting evidence, the witness’s ability to observe and recall crime scenes needs to be assessed. The guidelines may prescribe collecting evidence and presenting testimonies; these guidelines should be formed to reduce the risk of false testimonies.
Also, in medical evidence, 3d imaging and advanced DNA sequencing provide more accurate details. As the world heads towards artificial intelligence, the courts might develop or use the technology to analyse large volumes of data and reports. The most needed balance in medical evidence is maintaining a balance between the required evidence and the individual’s privacy.
However, each improvement and development can achieve its desired success only when well implemented. The courts must ensure that each piece of evidence is collected following due procedure and with proper consent.
Conclusion
Thank you, readers, for learning the difference between ocular and medical evidence with me. Both seem contradictory and conflicting, but indeed, the interplay and combination of both help the courts reach their true convictions. Medical evidence provides ample information and evidence when ocular evidence is lacking. However, it has its challenges and problems to solve.
Finally, the interplay between both fills gaps and leads to more just and equitable outcomes. While ocular evidence has more emotions, medical evidence provides scientific precision and helps the court gain an overall understanding.
Frequently asked questions (FAQS)
What is the primary difference between ocular and medical evidence in Indian law?
Ocular evidence is the eyewitness who was present at the crime scene. The witness must testify based on information from any of their senses. At the same time, medical evidence is the expert opinion and reports of medical experts.
Can ocular evidence be solely relied upon in criminal trials?
Reliance on ocular evidence in criminal trials is subject to many factors. The court generally disbelieves medical evidence when it rules out the chances of ocular evidence being true. Ocular evidence needs to be consistent and prove the accused’s guilt.
How does medical evidence impact the outcome of a case in the Indian legal system?
It corroborates the ocular evidence, providing objective and scientific backing to the facts. It can prove or disprove someone’s guilt in the case.
What are the legal consequences if medical evidence is found to be unreliable?
Unreliable medical evidence shall result in the acquittal of the accused. The court shall ensure that medical evidence is appropriately certified and reliable. The court gives precedence to the most reliable form of evidence.
How do courts handle conflicting ocular and medical evidence?
In various cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that ocular evidence cannot be disbelieved only because it conflicts with medical evidence. However, it can be disbelieved whenever medical evidence completely rules out the chances of ocular evidence being true.
What are the recent trends in the use of technology to enhance ocular and medical evidence in India?
Recent trends are towards using artificial intelligence, which analyses images of the eye and provides faster and more accurate results. This technology shall enhance the accuracy of ocular evidence and help track CCTV and GPS.
