Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Destructive crticism by defence lawyer
In the year 1994 I appeared before the Honarable I additional sessions court ,Palakkad to give evidence in a case of stab injury. During cross examination the defence counsel did not get any points in favor. There were seven accused in this case. He was trying to convince the court that there had occured a scuffle between the deceased & the accused & at last the deceased got multiple stab & cut injuries. In order to make his point stronger he was saying that " A SCUFFLE IS BETWEEN A GROUP OF PERSONS & IT IS NEVER ENDING" The judge asked me whether I did agree on the statement. I said I disagree. The judge was telling " IN THAT CASE YOU CAN DEFINE SCUFFLE". With in a fraction of second I uttered the following." SCUFFLE CAN BE DEFINED AS DEFENSIVE & PURPOSEFUL MOVEMENT BETWEEN TWO PERSONS, & THE ACT SCUFFLE ENDS WHEN ONE PERSON IS OVERPOWERED BY THE OTHER." On hearing this the defence counsel was commenting, You will say not only this & something beyond, because your association is with dead bodies. I was prompted to say something in return & the judge prevented me & himself came out like this. See Mr defence counsel, in a number of cases I used to give capital punishment & would you call me as the executioner?. After that comment the court was adjourned . I came behind the lawyer & told him you should respect each & every profession, for this he replied "Go to hell". I waited for an opportunity to give him something in return in that day itself. The counsel for the prosecution prevented me from further actions. I waited there near his car. with in short time he with his assistants & the accused persons came. I approached towards & told that You should respect each & other profession & it is their bread & butter. For this he retorted you go man& Iam having some other business to attend. I said I will go & before myself departing I may say that you are neither having any hair on your head & nor a brain inside your head & you are an imbecile . After that I went towards the jeep where the circle inspector of police in that case was waiting for me. The defence counsel came towards the jeep & lamented. See inspector tell him that I have seen so many other great police surgeons other than him. immediately the inspector was replying what ever you want to convey to him can be done directly to him.
Even though I said like that to the defence counsel directly over his face & I presume no body will dare to do it, I was not able to sleep during the night because the place where I was staying was very close to the place of accused
Thursday, July 3, 2008
PROFESSIONAL RIVALARY
The case came before sub judge Calicut three years ago. The HOD was not able to withstand the cross examination because of lack of clinical exposure. The complainant himself submitted before the Hon judge that "I AM WITHDRAWING MY CASE" & no harm should come for the HOD.
My comment TRUTH ALWAYS PREVAILS
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
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.
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
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
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