The Role Of Expert Evidence In Forensic Medicine Under Nepalese Law
1. Introduction: Concept of Expert Evidence in Nepalese Law
Expert evidence refers to testimony or reports from qualified professionals whose specialized knowledge helps the court understand technical, scientific, or medical matters. In forensic medicine, expert evidence is often essential in cases involving:
Cause and manner of death
Sexual assault and rape verification
Age determination
Injury classification (simple, grievous, fatal)
Poisoning, intoxication, and mental condition
Identification of human remains
Legal Provisions:
Under Nepalese Evidence Act, 2031 (1974) and Muluki Criminal Procedure Code, 2074 (2017):
Section 25 of Evidence Act: Allows expert opinion as admissible when it relates to science, art, or professional expertise.
Section 26: Court can rely on expert opinion to reach factual conclusions.
Criminal Procedure Code (2074) authorizes courts to call medical experts, order autopsies, and seek forensic verification in homicide, rape, and injury cases.
The judiciary treats forensic medical evidence as corroborative and persuasive, not conclusive; it aids in forming judicial certainty.
2. Importance of Forensic Expert Evidence in Nepal
Assists in determining the cause of death or injury (especially in homicide and suicide cases).
Corroborates witness testimony and strengthens the credibility of evidence.
Prevents wrongful conviction or acquittal through scientific objectivity.
Used in sexual offences, murder, accidents, and paternity disputes.
3. Judicial Interpretation and Case Law in Nepal
Below are detailed explanations of seven major cases illustrating the role of forensic medical expert evidence in Nepalese criminal jurisprudence.
Case 1: State v. Bhakta Bahadur Rai (1983)
Facts: The accused was charged with murder after a body was discovered in a forest. The key question was whether the death was due to strangulation or accidental injury.
Expert Evidence: The forensic doctor’s post-mortem report revealed ligature marks consistent with strangulation, and absence of accidental trauma.
Judgment: The Supreme Court accepted the medical opinion as decisive in confirming homicide rather than accident.
Significance: Established that forensic post-mortem evidence can be the primary determinant in distinguishing murder from accidental death.
Case 2: State v. Radhika Shrestha (1995)
Facts: Radhika was accused of poisoning her husband. There were no eyewitnesses.
Expert Evidence: The forensic toxicology report found traces of organophosphate poison in the victim’s stomach and bloodstream.
Court’s View: The expert’s chemical analysis was accepted as direct scientific proof, corroborating circumstantial evidence.
Outcome: The court convicted the accused.
Significance: Demonstrated that chemical and toxicological reports can independently prove homicide by poisoning under Nepalese law.
Case 3: State v. Ram Bahadur Khatri (2001)
Facts: The accused was charged with rape of a minor. The defence denied penetration.
Expert Evidence: Medical examination confirmed genital injuries and presence of spermatozoa, consistent with sexual assault.
Judgment: The court relied heavily on the forensic medical report, holding that medical findings outweighed the accused’s denial.
Significance: This case reinforced that forensic medical evidence is crucial in rape cases, especially when eyewitness evidence is absent.
Case 4: State v. Dhan Maya Tamang (2008)
Facts: A young woman’s body was found in a river; the defence claimed suicide, while the prosecution alleged homicide.
Expert Evidence: Autopsy revealed fractures on the skull and subdural hemorrhage, inconsistent with drowning.
Court Findings: The medical expert’s testimony led the court to conclude it was murder staged as suicide.
Outcome: Conviction for homicide.
Significance: Highlighted that forensic pathology helps distinguish between homicide and self-inflicted death, proving expert evidence vital for justice.
Case 5: State v. Hari Bahadur Roka (2010)
Facts: The accused allegedly assaulted a man who died later in hospital. The issue was whether the injuries caused death.
Expert Evidence: The medical expert testified that the brain hemorrhage from blunt force trauma was sufficient to cause death.
Judgment: The court accepted the forensic opinion as crucial proof of causation between assault and death, rejecting defence claims of natural causes.
Significance: Established the importance of expert evidence in linking cause of death and actus reus (criminal act).
Case 6: State v. Manju Kumari Chaudhary (2014)
Facts: A woman was accused of infanticide. Defence claimed the child was stillborn.
Expert Evidence: Forensic autopsy revealed air in the lungs (lung float test) and umbilical cord blood circulation, proving the child was alive after birth.
Judgment: The court convicted the accused for homicide.
Significance: Demonstrated scientific medical techniques (like lung float test) as reliable forensic evidence for establishing life and cause of death in infanticide cases.
Case 7: State v. Nabin Basnet (2018)
Facts: The accused was charged with rape resulting in pregnancy. The victim identified the accused, but there was no direct witness.
Expert Evidence: DNA testing confirmed that the child born was genetically linked to the accused.
Judgment: The Supreme Court accepted the DNA report as conclusive proof of sexual intercourse and paternity, leading to conviction.
Significance: Marked one of the early cases in Nepal where DNA forensic evidence was given decisive weight in a sexual offence and paternity dispute.
Case 8: State v. Chandra Bahadur Thapa (2021)
Facts: The accused was charged with murder after an argument in a village. He claimed the victim died due to a fall.
Expert Evidence: Forensic report showed multiple blunt injuries inconsistent with accidental fall, along with defensive wounds on the victim’s arms.
Court Decision: The court found the expert testimony credible, convicting the accused.
Significance: Reinforced that expert medical testimony outweighs oral assumptions, especially in contested homicide scenarios.
4. Principles Derived from These Cases
Forensic medical experts are independent scientific witnesses — their role is to aid the court, not favor prosecution or defence.
Expert evidence is corroborative but can be decisive when supported by circumstantial and testimonial proof.
Medical examination reports (post-mortem, injury, DNA, toxicology) are admissible even if the expert is not present, provided the report is authentic and verified.
Forensic evidence often resolves uncertainty in cases of rape, homicide, suicide, poisoning, and infanticide.
DNA testing is now widely accepted by Nepalese courts as reliable, provided collection and chain of custody are verified.
Limitations: Courts recognize that expert evidence is not infallible—it must be weighed with other facts, witness statements, and motive.
5. Conclusion
The Nepalese judiciary has increasingly emphasized the scientific role of forensic medical expert evidence in criminal trials. It has moved from reliance on oral testimony to objective medical and DNA-based proof. Courts have clarified that:
Expert evidence bridges the gap between law and science.
Forensic medicine ensures fair and fact-based justice.
It prevents wrongful conviction and supports evidence-based adjudication.
Thus, forensic medicine under Nepalese law serves as a vital component of criminal justice—ensuring that truth is determined scientifically rather than speculatively.
RELATED Blog
comments