Judgment text0% read
Browse the contents
Read the full judgment on the Supreme Court website ↗
Case information
| Court | Supreme Court of Bangladesh — High Court Division |
|---|---|
| Case reference | Criminal Appeal(H) 7167/2022 |
| Case-reference year | 2022 |
| Case type | Criminal Appeal(H) |
| Court website upload date | 21-MAY-26 |
The case-reference year is not the judgment year. The court website upload date is not a judgment date.
Official index description (excerpt)
Source: Supreme Court official index.
PW. 12 is the doctor who examined the victim and issued the injury certificate. This witness, in cross-examination, admitted that he did not mention the patient’s identifier name or registration number in the injury report. Moreover, this witness also admitted that he wrote in the report that the victim was admitted to a ‘‘Male Ward’’ in the hospital. Further, he admitted that the victim’s health condition was not necessary for hospital admission. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the firm view that the injury report issued by the doctor, PW.12, has lost its credibility/authenticity and has no evidential value under Section 45 of the Evidence Act. Notably, a doctor must strictly observe the rules of medical ethics and jurisprudence, as well as have regard to the law of the country, in discharging professional duties. Since the prosecution has failed to prove that the victim received treatment at a hospital specified in the Ain, the charge under section 11(ga) of the Ain against the appellant is barred by the proviso so enumerated in section 32 of the
[Excerpt ends; the complete index description is retained in the catalogue JSON.]