[Sections 45, 46, Evidence Act & 509, Cr.P.C. Etc.]
Medical opinion however eminent need not be read as conclusive of fact, which Court has to try. Statement of an expert stands on precisely the same footing as that of any other witness and may or may not be accepted by the Court. PLD 1972 Pesh. 92 State v. Amin Ullah.
Medical opinion rejected. When pistol injury was found to be scorched and the doctor said that the pistol was fired from a distance of 6 feet. The opinion was not in accord with the treatises on firearms and ballistics. PLD 1968 Lah. 407. Zafarul Haq.
Age of injury ocular evidence relied on in preference to medical opinion stating the injury to be 18 to 20 hours old when the witnesses indicated the injury to be 24 hours old. PLD 1968 Kar. 903. Mir Khan.
Medical opinion not relied on: Murder, time of death. Doctor's opinion based on approximation and visual observations. Analysis of other evidence of record suggesting time of death different from doctor's opinion. Doctor's opinion as to time of death not relied on. (DB) PLD 1969 Kar. 33. Ibrahim and others.
Medical evidence relied on in preference to oral testimony of witnesses when oral evidence was not above suspicion and doubt. (DB) PLD 1968 Lah. 1344. Sabir Hussain.
Medical evidence is no corroboration when ocular evidence is not unimpeachable. PLJ 1983 SC 28. Mehrban v. Abdul Hamid.
Medical evidence is not corroborative evidence though in conformity with the statement made by the witness, when the presence of the witness is doubtful. 1995 SCMR 896, Zafar Hayat.
Medical evidence has no corroborative value at all. Medical evidence cannot connect the accused with crime, nor it can support prosecution story. NLR 1986 Cr. 773. Saifullah Khan etc.
Medical evidence does not corroborate the involvement of the accused, it only confirms ocular  testimony  regarding injures only. 1997 SCMR 866, Muhammad Sharif etc.
Conflict with medical evidence: Ocular testimony directly in conflict with medical evidence regarding number of injuries caused to the deceased. Conviction set aside. (DB) 1977 P.Cr.LJ 30. Siddiq.
Medical evidence in conflict with ocular account, which has  been found to be true, in such a case medical evidence resting on brink of possibility shall give way to eye-witness account. PLJ 1997 S.C. 946, Aslam etc.
Approver's statement instead of corroboration contradicted by medical evidence not relied upon. NLR 1985 Cr. 423, Miraj Din.
Ocular evidence contrary to medical evidence. Ocular evidence not relied upon. (DB) NLR 1982 Cr. 467. Muhammad Hassan. PLJ 1982 Cr.C. (Lah.) 295.
Medical evidence to be preferred to ocular evidence as to the time of death. Ocular evidence cannot be accepted to the extent of its inconsistency with medical evidence. 1980 SCMR 889 Mardan Ali v. Gulistan etc.
Medical evidence preferred. Oral evidence regarding description of injury and range of shot contradicted by medical evidence. Medical evidence preferred. (DB) 1974 P.Cr.LJ 385 Bashir Ahmad etc. Contra. (DB) PLJ 1978 Cr.C. (Lah.) 441 Zafar. PLD 1978 Lah. 1209.
Conflict of medical evidence. Medical evidence conflicting with the account of occurrence given by first informant. Medical evidence to prevail over FIR account. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 90 Anwar. (DB) PLJ 1974 Cr.C. (Lah.) 98 Muhammad Iqbal.
Discrepancy between oral and medical evidence: Eye-witnesses stating that the shots were from 5 paces but four entrance wounds showing charring. Witnesses stating that the deceased was fired at in front of his body while am entrance wound at his back. Held, evidence doubtful. 1981 SCMR 132 Nawaz Ali.
Conflict with medical evidence and blood stains on the clothes of P.Ws. Medical evidence conflicting with ocular evidence. Clothes of P.Ws. blood stained and such witnesses stating to have gone to the police station with blood stained clothes, but police not taking these clothes in possession. Acquittal by High Court not interfered with. 1980 SCMR 126 Baz Ali v. Yousaf Shah.
Conflict between ocular and medical evidence, held medical evidence is to be preferred. Bagh Ali v. Muhammad Anwar 1983 SCMR 1292 relied upon. PLD 1988 Kar. 521. Yousaf.
Medical evidence falsified ocular testimony, ocular evidence tainted. No independent evidence to connect the accused with the crime. Appeal allowed. 1999 SCMR 172 Muhammad Aslam Khan.
Medical opinion relied on. Medical witness stating death to be "instantaneous" whereas sole eye-witness deposing that deceased after receiving heart injury shouted out name of her assailant. Evidence too seanty. Conviction set aside. (SC) 1969 SCMR 426 = 1969 P.Cr.LJ 989 Muhammad Aslam v. Crown.
Medical evidence inconsistent with the account of occurrence as given by eye-witnesses. Empties seized but no weapon recovered. Benefit of doubt given to the accused and acquitted. (SC) 1972 SCMR 74 Saindad etc. (SC) 1969 SCMR 644. Zarshad v. Bahadar Khan.
Medical evidence to be preferred and reliance on oral evidence of witnesses contrary to medical evidence is dangerous, for conviction. (DB) PLJ 1989 Cr.C. (Kar.) 82. Yousaf.
Ocular evidence contradicted by medical evidence, benefit of doubt given to the accused. (DB) PLJ 1993 Cr.C. (Pesh.) 120, Muhammad Zaman.
Ocular evidence conflicting with medical evidence. Benefit of doubt goes to the accused. (DB) PLD 1974 Lah. 306 = PLJ 1974 Cr. C. (Lah.) 144 Gharib Alam etc. 1976 P.Cr. LJ 980.
Medical evidence contradicting eye-witness, such eye-witness cannot be said to have seen the occurrence. (DB) NLR 1991 Cr. 241. Muhammad Tayyab.
Benefit of doubt in medical evidence must go to the accused and not to the prosecution. PLJ 1994 S.C. 87, Abdul Subhan v. Rahim Bakhsh.
Oral evidence preferred to medical evidence, when trial Court believed that the deceased dictated the F.I.R. as his vocal cords were intact. 1982 PSC 544. Aziz Ahmed.
Medical opinion can be completely ignored by Court for lack of satisfactory explanation and place reliance on ocular version or other circumstantial evidence found reasonably convincing. PLJ 1999 SC 86 Abdur Rehman.
Medical evidence contrary to ocular evidence. Medical evidence stating that the deceased was hit in the back while eye-witnesses stating that the deceased was hit in front chest. Held, discrepancy of no importance. The witnesses must have been confused in observation. 1986 SCMR 1027 Saeed Ullah Khan.
Ocular evidence in conflict with medical evidence. Accused acquitted. (SC) NLR 1999 Cr. 415 Sheral.
Level of injuries and medical opinion about it was not destructive of ocular evidence with regard to actual firing done by the accused. Such expert opinion could not prevail over reliable ocular evidence. 1992 SCMR 2037, Manzoor etc.
Medical report injuries. Medical report prepared at rural dispensary describing injuries as incised wounds while post-mortem report describing same injuries as contused wounds. Post-mortem report relied on and injuries held to be caused by blunt weapons. Injuries caused on bony parts by blunt weapons appear like-incised wounds to an inexperienced person. (SC) 1968 P.Cr. LJ 167 Hussain.
Sharp side of hatchet stated to be used. Medical evidence contradicting such witness. Held, no importance can be attached to such contradiction as in the heat of the moment because of shock and fear witness is not expected to correctly observe which side of the weapon was used. (DB) PLD 1988 Lah. 485. Rasham Khan.
Medical evidence can never name the accused, that is, from the injuries alone it cannot be said who had inflicted those injuries. PLJ 1993 SC 132, Munawar Ali = PLD 1993 S.C. 251.
Medical evidence as corroboration can be used only to prove in what manner and with what weapon the injury was caused but not to corroborate as to which accused caused the injury. 1992 SCMR 145, State v. Abdul Karim.
Medical evidence cannot furnish corroboration as to the identity of the offender, it can only furnish corroboration to the extent of the weapon used in the crime. 1992 SCMR 1258, Ghulam Farid = PLJ 1992 SC 295, 1992 SCMR 1445, State v. Abdul Karim PLD 1994 SC 178, Abdul Subhan v. Rahim Bukhsh etc.
Medical Evidence may confirm the ocular evidence regarding seat of injury, nature of injury, the weapon used, duration between injury and death but it would not connect the accused with the commission of the crime. 1994 SCMR 1928, Muhammad Iqbal v. Abid Hussain.
Medical evidence by itself does not establish the identity the accused. 1995 SCMR 127, Mehmood Ahmed etc.
Post-mortem examination of dead body is not essential when murder is otherwise proved. PLJ 1996 FSC 185, Abdul Malik.
Post-mortem not conducted, its effect. When factum of Qatle Amd or Qatle Khata has been independently established through strong and convincing evidence, mere fact that dead body was not discovered or post-mortem was not conducted has altogether no material effect or legal consequence. In this case bus driver had struck against the deceased and killed him instantaneously. Appeal dismissed. 4 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1,48,000 maintained. 1998 SCMR 1778 Abdul Rehman.
Second post-mortem examination can be ordered if circumstances justify it. Magistrate having passed order u/S. 174 Cr.P.C. can modify it. S. 369 Cr.P.C. is no bar. If two investigations can be done inquest report being part of investigation can also be conducted more than once. PLJ 1998 Lah. 276 Amir Khan v. District Magistrate Chakwal.
Medical evidence cannot identify assailants. Medical evidence by itself cannot throw any light on the identity of the assailants, but in the case of corroboration because the danger in relying on the ocular evidence in such cases is that the witnesses may falsely implicate their enemies. At best, when the medical evidence is consistent with the ocular evidence, it may furnish some limited corroboration if it can lead to the inference that the eye-witnesses have spoken the truth. This would however be in special circumstances. (SC) PLD 1976 SC 695 Machia etc.
Medical evidence not corroborative at best it proves weapon used, number and nature of injuries. It does not give the identity of the assailants. PLJ 1989 SC 345. Ahmed v. Muhammad Nawaz etc. = PLD 1989 SC 440.
Medical evidence cannot corroborate the involvement of the accused bu it is used only to corroborate ocular testimony. PLJ 1997 SC 1948. Muhammad Sharif etc. 
Test of Medical evidence. Medical evidence even by an eminent doctor cannot be accepted as conclusive, it must stand the test like any other piece of evidence. (DB) NLR 1982 Cr. 175 Hassan.
Examination for drinking alcohol should be minute. Doctor merely stating that bad smell was coming from the mouth of the accused does not establish the offence of drinking. PLJ 1984 FSC 91 Muhammad Hafeez.
Accused smelled of liquor, had red eyes and staggering gait the opinion of the medical officer on these symptoms was enough to hold that the accused had taken liquor to prove offence u/S. 11 of Prohibition Order. There was no need of Chemical Examiner's report. 1985 SCMR 1637 Muhammad Iqbal.
Non-production of radiologist to prove X-Ray regarding age of abductee, renders conviction of accused unsustainable. NLR 1987 Cr. 836. Nazir etc.
Post-mortem report proved by dispenser as the doctor who conducted the  post-mortem examination had proceeded abroad and there was no likelihood of his early return, held, evidence is sufficient to meet the legal requirement. (DB) PLJ 1997 Cr.C. (Lah.) 391, Muhammad Anwar.
Disenterment of dead body refused by D.M. Order set aside by High Court in writ jurisdiction with the order that the dead body be examined by a doctor and report sent to the D.M. for necessary action. NLR 1990 Cr. 67. Ghulam Nabi v. D.M. Okara.
Post-mortem not conducted or dead body was not discovered has altogether no material effect or legal consequence if factum of qatle and or qatle khata has been independently established through strong and convincing evidence. (SC) PLJ 1999 SC 86 Abdur Rehman.