reconciling medical evidence with the prosecution timeline

In a criminal prosecution, medical evidence plays a pivotal role in verifying the timeline and mode of death asserted by the prosecution. When medical opinion regarding the estimated time of death significantly conflicts with the prosecution's factual narrative regarding when the victim was missing or killed, it introduces a fatal infirmity into the case. Expert opinion from a medical examiner estimating the period of death based on post-mortem findings cannot be casually brushed aside when it directly contradicts the core hypothesis of the prosecution. Such a serious discrepancy between the scientific medical evidence and the oral accounts raises a substantial doubt regarding the actual time, place, and manner of the occurrence. Where the medical evidence fails to corroborate the timeline established by alleged eye-witnesses or circumstantial theories, the prosecution's case is severely undermined. The benefit of such material contradictions in the evidence must necessarily accrue to the accused. (Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. | 2026 INSC 67)