Forensic Law

http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l153-F http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l153-ForensicorensicEvidence.html In the middle of 19th century natural science began to develop by leaps and bounds. The mystic theories theretofore advanced to explain the scheme of things began to lose ground as the clear, cold logic of scientic experiment gradually shed a new light on the mysteries of universe. The change in point of view from the mystic to the scientic soon became apparent not only in criminal investigation but in the dierent facets of the legal system. ow there emerged two facets of a single case. The facet stated and the facet proved from scientic view point. The era of forensic science had arrived. !efore venturing in the fascinating and intriguing world of "edical #cience and $% testing let us try to see& the lin& between evidence and forensic science.

$enition of 'vidence( #trictly in legal context, evidence can be dened as various things presented in court for the purpose of proving or disproving a )uestion under in)uiry. It includes testimony, documents, photographs, maps and video tapes. These are termed as evidence of the case.  Trial  Trial evidence consists of( 1. The sworn testimony of witnesses, on both direct and cross*examination, regardless of who called the witness. +. The exhibits which have been received into evidence. . %ny facts to which all the lawyers have agreed or stipulated. %rguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. -hat they say in their opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. ultivating this denition further brings us to the door step of the /0aws of 'vidence ,which signicantly is not a branch but altogether a dierent segment of legal system. #o we can conclude that the term 20aws of 'vidence2 as a body of law.  The sub3ect*matter of that body of law, however, is not properly properly dened. It is a critical tas& to dene as it determines the rules of law to be reviewed and critically examined and the scope of any proposals.

Attempts at Defnition:

 The 0aw of 'vidence can be dened as  Those rules which directly or indirectly( indirectly( 1. ontrol what evidence may be received4 +. ontrol the manner in which evidence is presented and received4 . ontrol how evidence is to be handled and considered once it is received and what conclusions, if any, are to be drawn from particular classes of evidence4 5. #pecify the degree of satisfaction that the tribunal of fact must attain in determining whether a fact in issue is established and the conse)uences if such a level of satisfaction is not reached.  This is the approach of several writers. It has been found, however, that this formulation is unsatisfactory as it includes both substantive and procedural rules. -hile the denition of the 2laws of evidence2 has been considered by the courts, they have not attempted an exhaustive denition. %fter attempts to dene law of evidence lets dene forensic evidence and the way it can be related with law of evidence.

Defnition o orensic science:

6orensic 6orensic science is the use of science scien ce in the service servi ce of the law. #ciences used in forensics include any discipline that can aid in the collection, preservation and analysis of evidence such as chemistry 7for the identication of explosives8, engineering 7for examination of structural design8 or biology 7for $% identication or matching8.% forensic scientist is expert in any technical eld and can provide an analysis of the evidence, witness testimony on examination results, technical support and even training in his or her specialied area. %nalysis of forensic evidence is used in the investigation and prosecution of civil and criminal proceedings. :ften, it can help to establish the guilt or innocence of possible suspects. 6orensic evidence is also used to lin& crimes that are thought to be related to one another. 6or 6or example, $% evidence can lin& one oender to several dierent crimes or crime scenes 7or exonerate the accuse d8.0in&ing crimes help law enforcement authorities to narrow the range of possible suspects and to establish patterns of for crimes, which are useful in identifying and prosecuting suspects. 6orensic scientists also wor& on developing new techni)ues and procedures for the collection and analysis of evidence. In this manner, new technology can be used and rened not only to &eep forensic scientist on the cutting edge of science, but to maintain the highest standards of )uality and accuracy. 6orensic analysis is usually carried out by experts wor&ing individually or in teams. %dvanced techni)ues often re)uire laboratories where the investigative conditions

can be carefully controlled and monitored. ;rivate laboratories and government agencies support small and large forensic labs. %nalysis of forensic evidence is used in the investigation and prosecution of civil and criminal proceedings. :ften, it can help to establish the guilt or innocence of possible suspects. 6orensic evidence is also used to lin& crimes that are thought to be related to one another. 6or example, $% evidence can lin& one oender to several dierent crimes or crime scenes 7or exonerate the accused8. 0in&ing crimes helps law enforcement authorities to narrow the range of possible suspects and to establish patterns of for crimes, which are useful in identifying and prosecuting suspects. 6orensic scientists also wor& on developing new techni)ues and procedures for the collection and analysis of evidence. In this manner, new technology can be used and rened not only to &eep forensic scientist on the cutting edge of science, but to maintain the highest standards of )uality and accuracy. The in depth analysis of forensic evidence brings us to the main course of our topic. The dierent types of methods that can be used in forensic science and their acceptability in the legal system. he !ndian "cenario: 0et us rst cultivate the legal aspect of forensic and medical evidence in the India. %s per #ection 5< of Indian evidence %ct 1=>+* -hen the ourt has to form and opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting or nger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially s&illed in such foreign law, science or art, or in )uestions as to identity of handwriting or nger impressions are relevant facts. #uch persons are called experts.  6urther as per #ection 5? of Indian evidence %ct 1=>+* it is stated that facts, not otherwise relevant, are relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant.

 Thus the ingredients of section 5< and section 5? are highlights that( 18 The court when necessary will place its faith on s&ills of persons who have technical &nowledge of the facts concerned. +8 The court will rely the bona de statement of proof given by the expert concluded on the basis of scientic techni)ues. 8 The evidence considered irrelevant would be given relevance in eyes of law if they are consistent with the opinion of experts.  Thus we see that expert evidence helps the courts to draw logical conclusions from the facts presented by experts, which are based on their opinions derived by their specialied s&ills ac)uired by study and experience. @ence, experts are routinely involved in the administration of 3ustice particularly in criminal courts.

#ighlighting the sit$ation in the most commonl% so$ght ater e&perts:

he 'edical E&perts:

In India, we have adversarial system of 3ustice administration and ordinarily medical evidence is admitted only when the expert gives an oral evidence under oath in the courts of law expect under special circumstances li&e( a8 -hen evidence has already been admitted in a lower court4 b8 'xpert opinions expressed in a treatise4 c8 'vidence given in a previous 3udicial proceeding4 d8 'xpert can not be called as witness4 e8 @ospital records li&e admissionAdischarge register, birthAdeath certicates etc. In, India, it is a common perception that lot of time and eort is re)uired to record evidence and therefore by enlarge members of the medical profession does not li&e to involve in medico legal cases. #ome of the possible reasons put forward for this perception are( a8 Bndue time consumption4 b8 Cepeated ad3ournments4 c8 0ac& of wor& culture in the courts @ardly, any scientic data is available to support or refute this perception in relation to medical evidence. Therefore, it was planned to underta&e a pilot study to analye the )uantum of time and eort put in by medical experts to get the evidence recorded in criminal courts and other issues related to it. (oncl$sion  There is a unanimity that medical and forensic evidence plays a crucial role in helping the courts of law to arrive at logical conclusions. Therefore, the expert medical professionals should be encouraged to underta&e medico legal wor& and simultaneously the atmosphere in courts should be congenial to the medical witness. This attains utmost importance loo&ing at the outcome of the case, since if good experts avoid court attendance, less ob3ective professional will ll the gap, ultimately aecting the 3ustice. The need to involve more and more professionals in expert testimony has been felt by dierent organiations. The %merican ollege of physician2s guidelines for the physician expert witness emphasies on broad physician participation in providing this much*needed assistance to the legal system. The college believes that more doctors should serve as experts as a component of their professional activities in order to meet the need for medical testimony.

 This ob3ective of greater expert participation can only be achieved by addressing to the apprehensions that ponder the mind of medical professionals. In the light of new developments in the forensic science, the home ministry, Dovt. of India constituted a committee under the chairmanship of $r. Eustice F.# "alimath to suggest reforms

in the criminal 3ustice system. This committee suggested comprehensive use of forensic science in crime investigation. %ccording to the committee $% experts should be included in the list of experts given in section +9758 of r.;., 19>.

https://www.researchgate.net/p$)lication/*3++*,,,5'ed icalitnessand!ndian(o$rts in our practice it has been seen that the doctors are generally afraid to testify in the courts. This is mainly because of two reasons( one that they are not familiar of the legal procedures and two because they are afraid to be grilled in the court by the lawyers. %s a result many a times the attitude of the doctor while testifying in the court is to nish the testimony and go bac&, irrespective of the outcome. The beneciaries in such cases are the culprits who have to be ac)uitted because of lac& of evidence. %s a result the &nowledge, s&ill, education, experience and training of the doctors are necessary to ma&e them more competent while testifying in the court. Geywords("edical -itness, ourt,0egal #ystem !ntrod$ction

"edical evidence is routinely re)uired for administration of 3ustice all over the world. %s an expert witness, the doctor can be thrust, often unwillingly, into a foreign environment where the How of information is tightly controlled by complex rules of evidence which have been shaped by various laws with which the expert witness cannot expect to be familiar. It is a common perception among Indian medical professionals that lot of time and eort is re)uired for expert testimony in the court of law in our country. Thereby, large numbers of professionals avoid sharing medicolegal responsibilities. he legal s%stem

 The two dominant legal systems in the world are often referred to as the adversarial and in)uisitorial systems. The ob3ective is 3ust resolution of disputes and maintenance of social order. In the in)uisitorial system the court and the 3udiciary plays a proactive part and is involved in the examination and )uestioning of witnesses. The adversarial system being followed in India is based on the philosophy that the true facts of a given situation, and hence 3ustice, will emerge if the parties to a court action act as adversaries rather than cooperative participants. 'ach side

vigorously advances its own version of the facts, an impartial third person or group of persons 73udges8 will sift out the truth. #ince the 3ury were thought to be inHuenced by media and public support for the parties and is also open to being misled, the Indian government abolished 3ury trials after the case G.".anavati vs. #tate of "aharashtra in 19(?>.;almer %. ;rinciples of 'vidence. %valon #ydney( avendish ;ublishing, 199=  E;%6"%T +NN>4 >718. I## N9>+*