Ocular Evidence means oral testimonies by the witnesses in the criminal trial. It is a fancy word for oral evidence. As per Bentham, Witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice. It is the primary evidence that can narrate the circumstances of the case. And therefore, Ocular Evidence holds immense importance and high probative value in criminal trials. Section 59 of Evidence Act 1872 provides that all facts, except the contents of documents and electronic records, may be proved by Oral Evidence. Section 60 of the Evidence Act further provides that the oral evidence must be direct.
Medical Evidence is, ordinarily, more or less corroborative in nature. It is used in supplementing or entrenching the facts-in-issue or relevant facts in a criminal case when there is clear ocular evidence. Section 45 of the Evidence Act provides for the opinion of experts. Moreover, the grounds of an opinion are also relevant under Section 51 of the Evidence Act 1872.
When it comes to Ocular Evidence and Medical Evidence being inconsistent with each other, the settled law is that the ocular evidence must be given primacy, unless medical evidence completely overrules the ocular evidence.
In State of UP v. Hari Chand (2009) 13 SCC 542, the Hon’ble Apex Court re-iterated the aforementioned position of law and stated that “In any event, unless the oral evidence is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, it has primacy.”
In the case of Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1975 SC 1727, this Court held that where the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution is “totally” inconsistent with the medical evidence or the evidence of the ballistics expert, it amounts to a fundamental defect in the prosecution’s case and unless reasonably explained it is sufficient to discredit the entire case.
Hence, in cases where medical evidence completely overrules and makes the ocular evidence completely improbable, the evidence must be considered by the Court in that light and the ocular evidence may be disbelieved.
Concerning expert opinion, the court has opined that the opinion given by a medical witness need not be the last word on the subject and shall be tested by the court. If the opinion is bereft of logic or objectivity, the court is not obliged to follow that opinion. After all, opinion forms in a person’s mind regarding a fact situation. If one doctor forms one opinion and another doctor forms a different opinion on the same facts, it is open to the Judge to adopt the more objective or probable view.
Similarly, if the opinion given by one doctor is inconsistent with probability, the court has no liability to follow that opinion merely because it is said by the doctor. Of course, the court has admitted, that due weight must be given to opinions given by persons who are experts in the particular subject.
If the case involves this particular issue of law, one must sift through the evidence and frame the legal arguments as per the facts and circumstances of the case, while keeping in mind the importance of medical evidence.
However, technology is getting increasingly sophisticated. With increased sophistication comes the threat of tampering. Therefore, the Courts must take a guided approach and balance medical evidence with ocular evidence in light of modern advancements in medical science and technology.