FORENSIC SCIENCE!

Recently a group was accused of consumption of drugs in a rave party. I appreciate the police for busting this racket. But apart from the police there is someone involved, in detecting this crime. They are none other than the medical practitioners giving evidence i.e. people practicing forensic science.
Forensic science is lots more than highly equipped laboratories and sensational life! Forensic means of or used in Court of law i.e. it deals with the application of medical knowledge to aid in the administration of justice. It is used to detect the cause of death or injury.
Medical and law have been related from the earliest times. They were related due to religion, superstition, and magic. Law-medicine problems are found in the written records of Egypt, Sumer, Babylon, India, and China dating back 4000 to 3000 B.C. As far as Indian history is concerned, in 4th century, B.C., Manu (King and law-giver) in his treatise, Manusmriti, laid down various laws including punishment for various sexual offences, and recognized mental incapacity due to intoxication, illness, and age. Between fourth and 3rd century B.C. Arthashastra of Kautilya defined penal laws and regulated medical practice.
There are some cases, where the accused might be mentally imbalanced, which might be the reason for him/her to commit the crime. Like if a person has robbed a few things, just because he’s a kleptomaniac,
And there can also be some murder cases due to multiple personality disorders. In such cases respective certificates need to be issued.
A forensic doctor is supposed to appear in a court for the hearing and give his inferences over the study of the subject in the Court of law as a witness. A forensic doctor is sought by the police and the detection of the crime completely depends on the knowledge and skill of the doctor.
A doctor may be called in for 3 reasons, as an ordinary witness who saw the incident, as a medical practitioner who treated the patient, or as an expert to give his opinion on matters of science. In the first two cases it’s his duty. But in the third case it’s a matter of choice. Generally a doctor avoids giving testimony if he’s reluctant to undergo the experience which is considered to be painful, if he feels he’s not sufficiently qualified to testify with any conviction with that particular case, or if he feels he can’t spare the time for lengthy court room sessions. But generally a court room experience of a forensic doctor is not as painful as it is considered to be. But it can get irritating if the defense lawyer is prosecuting aggressively.
As mentioned before this is a job of great responsibility and the doctor should act with that responsibility. His presence should be full of confidence; he should have an impressive aura.
Brouardel, a French medico-authority wrote, if the law has made you the science; you have no victim to avenge, no guilty person to convict and no innocent person to save. You must bear testimony within the limits of science, i.e. a doctor should not decide on the basis of the subject, he should give his report based only on the scientific conclusions. Whatever be the history of the subject, his testimony should only be facts obtained scientifically.
The doctor just has to apply his knowledge to the controversy and come out with proper interpretation. The medico-legal authority should be very sure of what he says in the court room. The lawyers don’t have scientific knowledge and relies completely on the doctor’s testimony, so vague theories don’t have place in such testimony. As Dr. K. S. Narayan Reddy writes, “presumption is not proof, and conjecture is not evidence”. Which means neither probability nor guesses have any place in the testimony.
We often see on movies and serials, in which the doctors give in sensational dialogues and diplomatic answers as a testimony, but in reality it isn’t practiced nor is it allowed, a medical practitioner should just give in the medical observation in the most precise ways, and his presentation matters a lot. He should say everything honestly, which is noticed by the confidence in presenting
He should not talk about the incidence with the patient, and even if he does, he’s supposed to keep the information to himself, but can give the police an indirect warning, and can tell them to investigate in that matter.
A successful physician is one who has the power of observation, a wide range of exact knowledge, the power of deduction. Basic intelligence, clinical competence, experience, common sense, caution, foresight and last but not the least, wisdom.
The most important thing is, conclusions should not be drawn by looking at just some of the facts. A detailed examination should be done. There might be a case where a person is found to be poisoned, but might be having some external injuries, due to an accident. Here the chances of homicide by poisoning should not be ruled out. Such evidences should be looked, and if overlooked can lead to a murderer to escape punishment, or some might have to pay for damages for what they are not responsible either.
But sometimes even the best doctors might get fixed in a situation. There are no ideal or constant observations; there are always some variations in every case. These variations are natural and can’t be stopped, but this makes it difficult for a practitioner. But every conclusion has to be reasonable. And for illustrating every observation, a doctor can take the help of photographs, maps, diagrams, skeleton, etc.
But while doing all this, a doctor should take care of what he says; many professionals are getting sued these days for their wrong statements. So experience matters when in this field. Such experience can be gained by attending court room hearings. Medical students and aspiring medico-authorities should note down all questions, replies and situations. This will help them gain better experience and also reduce the fear of being a witness to one, and it will also help reduce the pain of an irritating proceeding.