This Telangana High Court ruling reinforces the principle that under **Section 32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872**, a **post-mortem certificate remains admissible** even if the doctor who conducted the autopsy is unavailable or deceased. The court emphasized that in such cases, the **report can be proved through another doctor** who can identify the handwriting and signature of the original doctor.

### **Key Takeaways from the Judgment**

1. **General Rule:** A post-mortem certificate is usually used **only to corroborate or contradict** the statement of the doctor who conducted the autopsy.

2. **Exception under Section 32(2):** If the doctor is unavailable (due to death or other reasons), the **post-mortem report becomes relevant and admissible evidence** as it falls under professional statements made in the course of duty.

3. **Proof through Other Doctors:** If another doctor familiar with the handwriting and signature verifies the post-mortem certificate, it is considered **proved**.

4. **Carbon Copies as Primary Evidence:** The judgment also noted that since the report was produced by a **uniform carbon copy process**, it qualifies as **primary evidence** under **Section 62 of the Evidence Act**.

### **Implications of the Judgment**

- This ruling strengthens prosecution cases where crucial medical evidence is involved but the original examiner is unavailable.

- It prevents unnecessary delays in trials due to the unavailability of medical professionals.

- Ensures that the **importance of forensic evidence remains intact** even if the original doctor cannot testify.

This decision is particularly relevant in **homicide cases** where post-mortem findings are crucial for proving cause of death. It sets a precedent that courts can rely on **expert opinions of subsequent doctors** to validate forensic reports.

#Section32EvidenceAct #TelanganaHighCourt #PostMortemReport #IndianEvidenceAct #JusticeEVVenugopal #PrimaryEvidence #CriminalLaw #IPC304 #LegalPrecedent #dranthonyraju