WHIMS & FANCY OF STATE MEDICO-LEGAL EXPERT

During the year 1995, I conducted a post mortem examination on the body of 35-40 yr old woman with the history of formic acid poisoning. The post mortem findings as well as chemical analysis turned out to be +ve for formic acid&I gave the opinion as well as statement also to the police; that based upon the the post mortem findings ,clinical history & chemical report that it was a case of poisoning due to formic acid & I didnot suspect any foul play. During 1997 while I was working at TRICHUR MEDICAL college I went to PARIYARAM Medical college as examiner. I happened to attend a phone call made by the public prosecutor Thalassery sessions during my stay at Dr. SGK'S house. He was ridiculing a doctor who conducted the post mortem examination in a case. and he was in need of an expert opinion from Dr.SGK in the above said case.Later on I made him to realise that It was the same person who conducted the autopsy to whom he was talking. He was pleading to see that at the time of giving evidence "I SHOULD SAY THAT IT WAS A CASE OF HOMICIDAL POISONING". To this request I said NO. Later Dr. SGK came & I narrated the whole event. HE informed me that out of political interest the police approached the State medico-legal expert(DR.MRC)& requested that in the absence of injuries to mouth & lips whether it could be a case of homicidal poisoning? The expert opined that it could be ,because formic acid was poured into the mouth of the person using a funnel & that was the reason for the absence of injuries around & inside the mouth? How silly & foolish it was.Dr SGK disagreed with the opinion of the medico-legal expert. But when the case was heard in the court both Dr.SGK & myself gave evidence on the same day in Thalassery sessions. He gave an opinion that some abrasions on the hands could be due to restraint injuries & the possibilty of homicidal poisoning could not be ruled out. The defence asked only one question to him . You are giving this opinion after reading the certificate issued by another doctor. When comparing the findings &opinion noted by the doctor with your expert opinion which is more reliable & correct? He was made to say that opinion given by the doctor should be relied upon.

The case was made homicidal out of political interest because the husband of the deceased resigned from one party to another.& he was made a scapegoat. One interesting fact to note was that the police never approached me with the homicidal theory.

A case of ligature strangulation,head injury

In the year 2005 I conducted postmortem examination on the body of one 11year old girl involved in valappad crime. There were finding in favor of ligature strangulation as horizontal ligature marks, soft tissue injury on the neck, head injury. Examination of the anal orifice reveled that she is used to the act of sodomy. Anal swab & smear proved +ve for semen & spermatozoa.The accused was arrested & he faced trail in the children's court, Ramavarmapuram during the middle of 2007. I took the photographs at the time of conducting the autopsy,but did not include the photos in the certificate. That was a mistake on my part. At the time of cross examination I showed the photographs to the Hon: Chief judicial magistrate & requested to include the same as evidence. The defence objected it & at last it was taken as evidence. No idea regarding the verdict given

Public prosector takes the role of defence lawyer

I did one murder case registered under OLLUR police station limits. The accused for brought to the department for taking the nail clippings & blood. DR. N.G.Revi was in charge of the department on that day. Since the department was not having a nail cutter & disposable syringe ,we requested the accompanying police constables to buy the required things. They did not like the request fro us & more over in the request they have shown the arrest of the person at 1200hrs & in fact he was brought at 1030 hrs.The above said matter was highlighted by Dr.N.G.Revi. We had a big quarrel after that . In the end they bought the materials & we did the needful. The police gave a report in the evening daily a report like this. "Dr.N. Rajaram is humiliating the police force & he is very ,quarrelsome,arrogant & action should be taken against him". The above said daily was brought by my friend Dr. P.C.Ignatius. I did not pay ant attention to it.
After few years when the case was posted at I additional sessions court, TRICHUR,before my court appearance I met the prosecutor Sri. Francis in his office. The first comment from him was that when Iam going to ask you regarding whether the investigating officer had questioned you in this case ,you should say "YES". I said "NO". Under that circumstance Iam going to declare as hostile. I said proceed. When I was about to leave from his room & he again put forth another request " Iam having certain doubts to clarify? I replied back "anyway you are going to declare me as hostile & the answer to your question will be given by me in the witness box.
The Hon: judge was Sri. Bhavadasn Nampoothri. After swearing in the box,the first question asked by the prosecutor "have you been questioned by the police"?I replied "NO". He was referring me as liar &was making a comment that I used to treat the police very badly& therefore he is going to declare me as "HOSTILE"
The judge opposed & informed that he new me well & there is no point against me to declare as hostile. I gave a deposition of what had happened at the time of examining the person. After taking down my explanation he was criticising the police & informed the prosecutor that it is unfair on his part to raise unnecessary comments against me

Miscarriage of justice

A political assassination with respect to Guruvayoor police station was posted at I additional sessions judge's court at TRICHUR years back. There were some ten accused persons who were facing the trail. The Special public prosecutor was none other than Sri. Veerachandra Menon. The defence lawyer was Late Sri. Kunjirama menon.It is acustom to meet the public prosecutor in each & every case in which we used to appear as witness. In this case also I met Sri. Veera chandra menon at the morning hours in his office. One request put forward by him is that "when I ask a particular question You may please answer in this way"!!. I replied back like this. Since your the Special prosecutor for this case you may tell like this & once that is over I will be facing you in another occasion as a defence lawyer & you may highlight the precedence at that time. I do not want that to happen & please excuse me.I had a very good time in the court with these eminent advocates & all the accused were sent to jail.

After few years it was reveled in another investigation ordered by high court that the real accused in that particular case were living as respectable citizens. A re-trail of the case was not undertaken so far

A CASE OF SODOMY

The victim happened to be a native of ORISSA, Working in a plywood company in Perumbavoor.He was arrested for a theft case in Perumbavoor & detained at Central prison,VIYYOR,TRICHUR.
On the early morning of 02/12'05 (0200hrs)I received a phone call from a police constable from Viyyor prison stating that a victim of sodomy was brought to the department of Forensic Medicine . To my surprise the duty surgeon in the town hospital casualty had examined the case completely in & informed the constable he should be taken to Forensic medicine department for further examination. I informed the constable the working time of the department from 0090hrs-1600hrs & requested him to bring the case at 0900hrs. The constable came by 1100hrs. The request for examination was issued by superintendent of Prison. There was a dispute whether we can examine the case,since no request was issued by the concerned police station. Any way on humanitarian grounds after entering the case in the medico-legal register I started examining the case. I could not proceed further because of excruciating pain complained by the victim. Professor of surgery was contacted I made request to examine the person under anaesthesia& take an anal swab & smear That day evening he was examined as directed & the surgeon could make out multiple superficial laceration of anal mucosa. The condition of the anal mucosa good.
The anal swab & smear turned out to be +ve for semen & spermatozoa.
No further development till this time

A CASE OF NEGLIGENCE

A seven year old girl from TRICHUR was admitted for squint correction in a famous teaching hospital in Cochin.

After pre anaesthetic medication she was taken to theatre for conducting the surgery. During induction of anaesthesia cardiac arrest occur ed. She was revived & again on induction she died on the table. Death was declared only by 1800hrs in the evening. Till that time she was put on ventilator& nothing was reveled to the relatives till evening. The body was brought for autopsy at Trichur Medical college,the next day. During autopsy I was not able to make out any surgical incision in the affected eye. As per IP case records surgery was completed?WHAT A CONTRADICTION!!. Even though by autopsy I was not able to make out anything except petechiae of internal organs with congestion; by histopathologiacl examination of internal organs reveled the existence of allergic reaction. Opinion as to cause of death was given as due to inhalation of anaesthetic gas after getting histopathological opinion from Pathologist. Later on from the investigating officer it was known that there was only one anaesthesiologist looking after 09 or 10 operation table. In that case thereis no wonder for this incident to occur. The concerned lady ophthalmicsurgeon from north India returned back to her native place.

In order to bring out the role of negligence of the doctor concerned as routine procedure;a meeting was convened by Eranakulam DMO, the medical boardconsisting of DMO,Superintendent of Police,Ernakulam,Public Prosecutor Ernakulam & Police surgeon from Alleppey Medical college. The opinion given by the police surgeon was " NO EVIDENCE OF ANAPHYLATIC REACTION". Later on I happened to meet the concerned & asked why such an opinion was given."The answer was I did not read the post-mortem certificate issued by You". This shows the motive of the concerned to safe guard the interest of the particular teaching Institution.The surgeons are having a feeling that in the event of death of a person in the operation table;if the matter is not disclosed to the relatives by them at that moment ,it will not be known to the concerned. They are forgetting about other theater staff working along with them. Another disgusting fact is that hooking up of case records in the event of death of the person. They are forgetting the doctrine"RES IPSA LOQUITOR"

Photographs of "MISINTERPERTED FINDINGS"

MISINTERPERTED FINDING

This particular case dates back to 2000 when I was working as Associate professor of Forensic medicine,Government Medical college,TRICHUR. A dead body involved in DELHI crime recovered from a park in an half naked condition over the picket fences where one of the spike had penetrated into the chest cavity.The deceased was a native of TRICHUR,KERALA. The body was subjected to medico-legal autopsy at Delhi& the relatives were not satisfied with the cause of death given. I conducted the re-autopsy. I was able to make out 07 ante mortem injuries on the body;out of which injury number 01 included 26circular lacerated injuries spread over forehead & face which could only be produced by shot gun fired at a distance. There was also another circular punched out lacerated wound over the front of left side of chest.The wound was communicating with the chest cavity without injuring any organs.Five postmortem injuries were also made out.( previous postmortem incisions & injuries produced during embalming.)I was able to recover a pellet piece from one of the wounds on the face. Out of the few pellet wounds over the face only two penetrated into the skull cavity. X- ray examination prior to autopsy did not bring anything in favor.As a routine procedure the fragment of pellet recovered,the vault of skull,X-rays taken & were handed over to the authorities under protest The father of the deceased approached the Supreme court demanding CBI inquiry & as demanded it was ordered. The CBI team appointed a medical board & the conclusion of the medical board is funny. It goes like this.1) The deceased was a mentally ill person,2) He was haunted by spirits,3) The multiple injuries described over the face as shotgun wound of entry are nothing but HESITATION WOUNDS.( Hesitation wound means a person who is going to commit suicide by inflicting injuries over ones own body will produce multiple parallel tentative superficial cuts to begin with & when he regains courage sufficiently he will make the fatal wound. These hesitation cuts as it is called are seen over the front of neck,front of wrists etc)This is very unusual for a person to produce multiple injuries spread over face by striking his head over the picket fences.I may say that there is degradation of academic thinking by our own experts.
The doctor who conducted the first autopsy gave his opinion as " CRANIO-CEREBRAL TRAUMA" I gave my opinion as " THE DECEASED DIED OF SHOT GUN INJURY" sustained. THE MEDICAL BOARD gave its verdict as " SUICIDAL & HE WAS MENTALLY ILL & HAUNTED BY SPIRITS". who was right????