Judicial Restraint Paramount For Cognizance In Medico-Legal Cases: Rajasthan HC Exonerates Doctors Charged Of Forging Pathological Report

The Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court has underscored that in cases concerning doctors/hospital administration involving allegations of forging pathological reports, meticulous judicial scrutiny was required before taking cognizance, especially when the doctor had not refuted the authenticity of the signatures.

Justice Farjand Ali opined that the risk of invoking presumptions under Section 114, Indian Evidence Act in medico-legal matters was magnified and hence in such cases, the Court must refrain from applying the theory of general presumptions unless there was clear, scientific and legally admissible evidence available to substantiate the allegations. For context Section 114 lays down that the Courts could presume existence of a fact which was likely to have happened in light of common cause of events, human conduct and public and private business.

The court thus said:

“In medico-legal matters, where the stakes often involve not just reputations but also public trust in healthcare systems, the consequences of presumptive reasoning are magnified. The courts must refrain from applying the theory of general presumption in such cases until clear, scientific, and legally admissible evidence is presented to substantiate the allegations. Presumptions, when invoked prematurely, risk overshadowing the objective evaluation of facts and can lead to unnecessary stigmatization of professionals whose actions may be entirely lawful and appropriate. Judicial restraint is, therefore, paramount at the stage of cognizance in medico-legal cases. Courts must ensure that decisions to proceed are grounded in demonstrable and credible evidence, such as conclusive findings from forensic or scientific tests. This approach prevents misuse of Section 114, which, if misapplied, can undermine the foundational principles of fairness and due process.”

The Court was hearing a petition filed against the order of Trial Court as well as the revision court wherein cognizance of offences for cheating and forgery was taken against four petitioner doctors based on the complaint filed by the complainant.

Complainant's brother-in-law was admitted to the Escorts Goyal Heart Centre Jodhpur where he passed away. It was alleged by the complainant that in the pathology reports provided to them, there was inconsistency with the signatures which reflected that the hospital administration colluded with the treating doctor and generated false bills based on fabricated pathological reports. It was alleged that despite knowing that the medical reports were false, the doctors prescribed flawed medical treatment that proved fatal to the deceased.

After hearing the contentions, the Court held that medico-legal matters involved not only reputations but also public trust in healthcare systems, and thus, the immature presumptions under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act led to unnecessary stigmatization of professionals. Hence, Courts must be restrained and proceed only based on demonstrable and credible evidence to prevent misuse of Section 114 and reinforce reputations of individuals and public confidence in both legal and medical systems.

The Court also highlighted that it was a conclusive practice that pathological reports were generated through advanced diagnostic tools, designed to ensure precision and minimize human error or subjectivity. Also, these reports were prepared under the supervision of certified medical professionals. In this background, the Court opined that,

“The Mere allegation of a signature discrepancy does not negate the integrity of findings derived from these scientifically validated processes. It is also significant that the individual responsible for verifying and signing the reports has not disputed the signatures or claimed any forgery. This absence of contestation further diminishes the credibility of the allegations. Even if there were differences in the style or appearance of the signatures, such inconsistencies absent conclusive proof of falsification cannot suffice to render the reports forged or fabricated…Thus, the pathological reports, rooted in advanced scientific techniques and professional oversight, cannot be dismissed on the basis of alleged signature discrepancies”

Furthermore, the Court analysed the charges in light of the ingredients of the specific sections under IPC and observed that existence of a “false document” was a prerequisite for invoking the charge of forgery. However, in the present case, no authority or the purported author of the pathological report had questioned its authenticity.

It was held that even if it was assumed that the report was not signed by the same person whose name was written at the bottom of the report, it did not amount to creation of a false document unless it was coupled with dishonesty or fraudulency on part of the accused with an intention to cheat the complainant.

“The jurisprudential cornerstone for establishing culpability under these statutory provisions lies in unequivocal evidence demonstrating deliberate deceit, fraudulent intent, and the creation or utilization of a 'false document' as defined under Section 464 IPC. In the absence of such evidence, the allegations remain speculative and unsubstantiated. Consequently, it is incumbent upon the judiciary to exercise heightened scrutiny and circumspection before attributing criminal culpability under the aforementioned sections.”

In this background, the Court opined that even though at the stage of cognizance, comprehensive examination was not needed, in cases where criminal complaint was against the doctors and healthcare institutions, the degree of examination had to be on a higher pedestal where such allegations could be afterthought based on resentment due to unfavourable human expectation.

Accordingly, it was held that the cognizance by the trial court appeared to be based on mere presumption rather than credible evidence, and hence, it was set aside and the petitioners were exonerated of the charges.

Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar v the State of Rajasthan and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 7

Counsels for Petitioner(s): Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, Mr. Nishant Bora

Counsels for Respondent(s): Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Mr. Nikhil Dungawat

Click Here To Read/Download Order