It is very important. Where a deceased died as a result of an injury sustained from an assault some days before, the medical evidence becomes very imperative. It helps the court to infer the cause of death of the deceased. This is because, the direct evidence required to prove the cause of death must be such as would connect the death of the deceased person with the act of the accused. Oguntola v. The State (1996) 2 NWLR (Pt. 432) 503; Adamu v. Kano N.A (1956) 1 F.S.C. 25
No, that is not what it means. Although medical report is important, it is not always necessary and it is not always a basis upon which the court can convict a person charged with death or injury related crime. Medical evidence is not always essential to prove the cause of such crime. Where a person is attacked for instance and such person dies immediately, medical evidence will not be of utmost or indispensable importance. The court would consider connectedness of the attack and resultant death too obvious to require medical report. Also, the voluntary confession of an accused person need not be buttressed by a medical report. Uguru v. State (2002) 25 WRN 118 SC; Akpan v. State (2008) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1106) 72 SC.
A medical certificate tendered by a government officer in the medical field to prove or show evidence of rape (for example) for which an accused person is charged, would be sufficient evidence even where not buttressed by oral evidence. The court treats such certificate as sufficient evidence of the fact stated in it. It is immaterial that the medical officer gives no oral evidence in support. Section 55(1)(2) Evidence Act, 2011
No. where a party has not specifically applied for the maker of such a certificate to be called as a witness such party cannot later complain that the trial court failed to call the officer who signed or issued the certificate. Nwachukwu v. State (2002) 46 WRN 1 SC.
Where a medical officer had examined a corpse and given a post mortem evidence as to the probable cause of death of the deceased, it makes it unnecessary to tender a medical certificate and failure to tender same does not in any way affect the suit. Nwabueze v. The People of Lagos State (2014) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1394) 401 CA; Adekunle v. The State (1989) 505.
A medical officer in the service of the state for the purpose of undertaking a post mortem is a pathologist and his report is the one envisaged under the Evidence Act. However, any certificate issued and produced in a criminal proceeding by any officer in charge of a laboratory set up by an appropriate authority can be taken as sufficient evidence of fact stated in it. Section 55(1)and (2) Evidence Act, 2011 Amusa v. State (2003) 18 WRN 105 SC; Ehot V. State (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 290) 644 at 657
Where a medical certificate is signed by a named medical officer, same is sufficient to be admitted in evidence and the presumption of regularity is ascribed to same notwithstanding that he was not in court to personally tender it. The medical officer need not be present in court especially where reasons have been adduced as to his absence to the satisfaction of the court, and the evidence is uncontradicted. Nwachukwu v. State (2002) 46 WRN 1 SC. Section 168(1)(2) Evidence Act, 2011.
No, the court is not bound to accept as true all medical certificates produced before it especially where it contradicts itself. For instance where a medical certificate conflict. In the identity of the body of the victim in a criminal proceeding and the identity of the body on which the examination was performed, the court is not bound to rely on same. Amayo v. The State (2002) 5 WRN 1 SC; Bwashi v. The State (1972) 6 SC 93