Site navigation

In State of U.P. v. Shobhnath (8 May 2009), the medical injury and postmortem reports consistently…

In Shobhnath the Supreme Court found that the injury report and postmortem report were consistent and supported the eyewitnesses, while the police who prepared the inquest…

Choose your answer

In State of U.P. v. Shobhnath (8 May 2009), the medical injury and postmortem reports consistently recorded five similar injuries, while the police inquest differed. How did the Supreme Court treat reliance on that discrepancy to discard the prosecution evidence?

Select one answer
Answer and explanation

Correct answer C

In Shobhnath the Supreme Court found that the injury report and postmortem report were consistent and supported the eyewitnesses, while the police who prepared the inquest were not medical experts. Discarding the prosecution case for the inquest discrepancy was a misreading of the evidence, and the convictions were restored; no rule was laid down that eyewitnesses yield to a postmortem.

Practice for these exams

Related exam syllabi

Related questions in this topic