Non-examination of the post-mortem doctor is not fatal when the report’s genuineness is undisputed.

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC for stabbing his wife, who died after receiving treatment for her injuries.

The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of PWs.2 and 3, who the Court treated as eyewitnesses, evidence of marital discord and motive, and medical and forensic material.

The Sessions Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.50,000; he appealed, challenging the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence, including the non-examination of the post-mortem doctor and the delay in obtaining the FSL report.

Whether the evidence on record established the appellant’s guilt under Section 302 IPC and supported the conviction.

Whether the non-examination of the post-mortem doctor, alleged investigative lapses, or delay in obtaining the FSL report rendered the conviction unsafe.

Section 302 IPC governs the offence of murder.

The Court applied the principle that witness evidence is assessed for its quality and credibility, not by the number of witnesses; it relied on Ajai alias Ajju v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 INSC 127.

It further held, relying on Edakkandi Dineshan alias P. Dineshan v. State of Kerala, (2025) 3 SCC 273, that defective investigation alone does not entitle an accused to acquittal if the remaining evidence proves the charge.

Under Section 293 CrPC, qualifying reports by Government scientific experts may be used in evidence without examining their authors; the Court also relied on Section 294 CrPC and Akhtar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2009) 13 SCC 722, and Boraiah alias Shekar v. State by Ramanagaram Police, 2002 Cri LJ 1031, concerning the evidentiary use of an undisputed post-mortem report.

The Court also considered the appellant’s failure, when examined under Section 313 CrPC, to explain how his wife sustained the injuries.

The Court found that PWs.2 and 3 consistently described the stabbing and that their evidence was supported by evidence of the preceding marital discord, the injuries recorded in the inquest and post-mortem materials, and the other circumstances on record.

It considered the appellant’s failure to explain the injuries significant because the relevant circumstances were within his knowledge, and held that the evidence of PW.4 concerning the transportation of the deceased to hospital did not materially undermine the prosecution case.

The Court further held that non-examination of the doctor and the delay in obtaining the FSL report were not, by themselves, fatal; it found no infirmity warranting appellate interference.

It dismissed the appeal and left in place the conviction under Section 302 IPC and the sentence imposed by the trial court.