Justice B Pugalendhi added that the directions were intended to strengthen the quality of medical evidence before the court, to reinforce confidence in expert witnesses and minimise the possibility of errors. The court highlighted that the efficiency of the justice delivery system relied heavily on the credibility of expert evidence and thus every medical professional needed to discharge their duty with the highest standard of competence.

“The efficacy of the justice delivery system depends, to a considerable extent, upon the credibility of expert evidence. It is, therefore, imperative that every medical professional entrusted with this responsibility discharges it with the highest standards of competence, objectivity and professional integrity,” the court said.

The court directed that the circular should highlight the ethical standards expected of every expert witness and that every medical witness is expected to depose objectively, honestly and impartially. The court said that the circular should include the necessity of ensuring that Accident Registers, Wound certificates, medico-legal reports and all other medico-legal records accurately record the clinical findings and professional opinion formed at the time of examination.

The court also highlighted the importance of making entries in the Accident Register, wound certificate and other records in a clear, legible and unambiguous manner, avoiding illegible handwriting, unexplained abbreviations and ambiguous expressions. The court added that whenever the infrastructure permits, the records may be generated in a typed or computer-generated format so that it is readily comprehensible.

The court also called for preparing a revised proforma for Medico-Legal Examination of Survivors/ Victims of Sexual Violence issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The court emphasised that the expert witness should familiarise themselves with the relevant medical records before entering the witness box, that the witness should carefully understand every question put during the chief and cross-examination, and wherever any ambiguity exists, to seek appropriate clarification. The court added that the deposition should be carefully read and verified before signing.

The court was hearing a petition filed by two accused in a POCSO case seeking to suspend their sentence while the appeal against conviction was pending. The allegation against the men was that they had sexually abused an 8-year-old victim boy by compelling him to do oral sex and by inserting their private parts into the boy's anal rectum. The men were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years for offences under Sections 6 read with 5(m) and 5(l) of the POCSO Act.

The men argued that the Doctor who treated the boy, in his cross-examination, had said that there was no injury to the anal rectum and the mouth of the victim boy. Thus, arguing that the prosecution case was not proved medically, the men sought to suspend the sentence.

The prosecution, on the other hand, submitted that in the Chief examination, the doctor had stated that he found injuries in the mouth and anal rectum of the victim boy.

Noting the apparent inconsistency, the court sought details from the doctor. The doctor submitted that the initial examination was conducted by another medical officer and that the injuries were entered in the hospital records, but the same were not properly recorded in the Wound certificate, giving rise to the inconsistency.

Considering the explanation, and after perusing the medical records, the court dismissed the plea for suspending sentence after finding that the grounds canvassed by the petitioners lacked merit. However, the court deemed it fit to highlight the importance of medical evidence in POCSO cases, and deemed it fit to issue directions accordingly.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. J. Vivek, Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. A. S. Abul Kalaam Azad Government Advocate (Crl.side)

Case Title: Nambu Kaleeswaran and Another v The State of Tamil Nadu

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 402

Case No: Crl MP(MD) Nos.5823 & 6941 of 2025