The Police Surgeon

The Police Surgeon is a medical officer usually a Professor or Assistant Professor of Forensic Medicine in a Medical College, appointed under that designation by the Government of the State. He is designated police surgeon as he has to perform the medico legal work in all police cases within his jurisdiction if the police request him to do so.  Now, how far the police surgeon's activities affect the administration of criminal justice in our country is a matter of some importance and needs to be seriously considered.  The police surgeon's work and evidence becomes material in hurt and homicide cases.  He has to say before Court whether a particular person as a result of the injury sustained could or could not attend to his ordinary avocations of life for a period of say twenty days or more. He has to say whether a particular injury is simple or grievous. He has so say whether a particular injury has been caused by a sharp and pointed weapon or a blunt and smooth weapon or a hard and rough object or whether a pattern injury is formed by a particular type of weapon or not. He has to say whether an injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or whether it can be described as one likely to cause death or whether it is only remotely likely to cause death and so on. He has to say whether a particular appearance found at post-mortem can be due to a particular disease or whether it be due to poisoning or due to physical injury. He is called upon to answer questions relating to the possibility of the injured having been able to walk or run after sustaining a stab or shot in the heart or lung. His ability to talk and for how long his coherence and its standard Whether he could give sensible and coherent statement etc.  Now, who are these police surgeons and people under them who are in charge of this important work ? They are all invariably either holders of an M.D. degree in forensic medicine or people working for that degree and having a basic MBBS degree.  The MBBS degree holder immediately after completing his course and completing his house surgency undergoes, senior house surgency and then studies for two for three years for the degree of MD in Forensic Medicine and straightway joins the forensic medicine department as tutor then becomes. Assistant Professor and Professor and police surgeon.  What is important to note is that these people do not have any experience in treating any sick person either as a physician or as a surgeon. It will not be far from the truth if we say that they see men more dead than alive always.  So, if our forensic medicine man says that a particular injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, I would say he does not know the ordinary course of nature save as a lay man. For he has not treated any patient with that injury. Except as a student he has had no occasion to see a live patient on the operation table. He does not know from personal experience gained by actual practice as a surgeon as to what are the degrees of probability of success and failure as far as the particular injury and treatment for it are concerned. So regarding other similar questions I would say he may be an expert on cadavers (dead bodies) but not on live human beings and their conditions and the effect of injuries, poisons etc. as live humans.  I would quote an example. A professor of forensic medicine (an efficient and honest witness) was asked whether a cut on a little finger cannot cause a cut on the branch of the radial artery and if unattended to it can cause death. He said yes and as a logical consequence he admitted that it is an injury which he may describe as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. But I venture to state that any ordinary surgeon would say it is not even likely to cause death and death as a result of such an injury will be ruled out as it is only a remote possibility. Similarly the same doctor had to admit that a small hit on the head on one side could cause contra coupe injury on the brain on the opposite side and that brain injury can cause death and therefore as a logical consequence a small hit on the head had to be described as an injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. An ordinary surgeon would say it is a simple hit and it need not cause even a contusion on the head at the site of the hit. The possibility of a contrecoup injury to the brain will be ruled out as remote.  The net result of the difference in the approach of a competent physician or surgeon and that of a forensic medicine man who is not accustomed to treating patient is this and the consequences for the unfortunate victim of the law is anybody's guess.  For if the injury is described as simple, it may mean simple hurt, an offence triable as a summary case and by a second class Magistrate and punishable with fine. If grievous it becomes punishable with imprisonment of varying terms. If the injury results in death and it is described as sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death the penalty will be imprisonment for life. But even if death is caused but the injury is stated to be not sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature to cause death the penalty will be far less in years of imprisonment. So when we have to solve problems where human life and liberty are at stake this unwise dependence on persons ill qualified to judge the nature of the injuries etc. will of necessity result in grave prejudice.  Hence I submit that this system of police surgeons and this dependence on forensic medicine men of the present type must go.  Real forensic medicine experts must be competent and experienced, surgeons who have taken: up the additional burden of specialising on this aspect of medicine also. Persons who have ceased to be surgeons and become only forensic experts so called are I would submit, a useless appendage capable of doing no real service.  What we must have are medico legal surgeons and forensic pathologists who have practised much in medicine and/or surgery and not so called experts whose only expertise is on dead bodies.  And it may not be out of place here to place on record my emphatic criticism against these medico legal men and the evidence that they give. Most of these men like other witnesses have a bias in favour of the party who calls them. They are often called by the prosecution. They feel that they are bound to support all fantastic theories put forward by the prosecution and also to controvert all, suggestions and theories put forward by the defence. If there are two possible answers to a question the medical witness as a man of science and an expert is bound to give both. But what the most truthful of them does is to give only that answer which is more favourable to the prosecution and to suppress the other answer. The questioner who is unaware of the other answer is easily misled and he is thereby becoming a party to suppression of relevant evidence from the Court. The name "police surgeon" also it appears casts some spell upon the incumbent so as to make him I have a feeling of esprit de corps with the police.  These medico legal experts are not made available to the defence. The defence is not given an opportunity to consult them, the experts. Their services should be made available to the defence and they should be free to discuss with and advise the defence. They are not to be treated as persons bound to support the prosecution's theory. Now that we do not have other qualified and recognised experts available for the defence the services of these experts must be made available to the defence. Otherwise there will be no equality before the legal process as far as this aspect is considered.

Author Name: K Jagadisachandran Nair