Victimology MP/MSK 04 100. DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY AND FORENSIC SCIENCE 11. Paranjape, N.V. Criminology & Penology, Central Law Publications.
Author Affiliations
- 1Bar Council of Delhi, New Delhi, India
Res. J. Forensic Sci.,Volume 4, Issue (6), Pages 1-7, June,29 (2016)
Abstract
The forensic expert acts as an aid/tool in order to help the courts to arrive to justice. Experts use their skills and give their reports to the courts. This paper deals with the role of experts and the law relating to the admissibility of reports/opinions of forensic experts and other experts in the Indian courts. The reference has been given to number of case-laws; that how the court has considered and placed reliance upon the reports of various experts. The relevant discussion is regarding the relevancy and evidentiary value of the expert reports/opinions vis-à-vis law relating to the same.
References
- Maithil B. P. (2012)., Physical Evidence in Criminal Investigation and Trials., 1st Edition, Selective and Sceintific Books, Delhi, India, 5-45.
- Avtar Singh (2013)., Principles of The Law of Evidence., 20th Edition, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, India, 243-245.
- Indian Evidence Act (1872)., Opinion as to handwriting, when relevant., Reference: Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act, India.
- Indian Evidence Act (1872)., Opinion as to existence of right or custom, when relevant., Reference: Section 48 of the Indian Evidence Act, India.
- Indian Evidence Act (1872)., Opinions as to usages, tenets, etc., when relevant., Reference: Section 49 of the Indian Evidence Act, India.
- Indian Evidence Act (1872)., Opinion on relationship, when relevant., Reference: Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, India.
- Indian Evidence Act (1872)., Grounds of opinion, when relevant., Reference: Section 51 of the Indian Evidence Act, India.
- Beg M. (1967)., Devi Prasad and Ors. vs State on 10 September, 1964., 1967, Criminal Law Journal, 64, 134, AIR (All India Reporter).
- Scott K. (1911)., Punjab National Bank Ltd. vs Mercantile Bank of India Ltd., 13 BOMLR, 835, BOMLR (Bombay Law Reporter).
- Bhagwati (1956)., Pritam Singh vs State of Punjab., SC 415, CriLJ 805, AIR (All India Reporter), SC (Supreme Court).
- Mukherjee M. K. (1997)., Mohd. Aman vs State of Rajasthan., SC 2960, AIR (All India Reporter), SC (Supreme Court).
- Mohan S. (1993)., Goutam Kundu vs State of West Bengal., AIR 2295, SCR(3) SCC (Supreme Court Cases).
- Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (2012)., Rohit Shekhar vs Narayan Dutt Tiwari and Anr., 12 SCC 554, SCC (Supreme Court Cases).
- Pasayat A. (2005)., State of MP vs Dharkole., AIR, SC 44, AIR (All India Reporter), SC (Supreme Court).
- Singh B. P. (2008)., Ram Swaroop vs State of Rajasthan., AIR 2008 SC 174, also refer: Sunil Dattatarya Vaskar vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 2009 SC 210, AIR (All India Reporter, SC (Supreme Court).
- Ramaswami V. (1970)., Abdul Razak Murtaza Dafadar vs State of Maharashtra, SC 283, AIR (All India Reporter), SC (Supreme Court).
- Dave D. (1963)., Ramla vs State., Criminal Law Journal, 387.
- Verma J. S. (1966)., State vs S. J. Choudhary, 2 SCC 428, SCC (Supreme Court Cases).
- K. B. I. (2010)., Selvi v. State of Karnataka., 7 SCC 263, SCC (Supreme Court Cases).
- Mirdhe (1996)., S. G. Gundegowda vs State Karnataka., Criminal Law Journal, 852.
- Hegde S. (2000)., Rchhpal Singh vs State of Punjab., AIR SC 2710, AIR (All India Reporter), SC (Supreme Court).
- Sarkaria R. (1976)., Mahmood vs State of U.P., AIR SC 69, AIR (All India Reporter), SC (Supreme Court).
- Singh K. (1992)., Mohd. Isa Khan vs State of U.P., Criminal Law Journal, 3987.
- Thomas (2000)., State of Maharashtra vs Damu Gopinath Shinde., AIR SC 1691, AIR (All India Reporter), SC (Supreme Court).
- Ashok B. Hinchigeri (2009)., Malappa Sidappa Alakumar vs State of Karnataka., AIR SC 2959, AIR (All India Reporter), SC (Supreme Court).
- Singh B. P. (2008)., Ram Swaroop v. State of Rajasthan., AIR SC 1747, AIR(All India Reporter), SC(Supreme Court).
- Wikipedia (1994)., R vs Mohan., CanLII 80, SCC (Supreme Court of Canada), Canadian Criminal Law.
- Brian Weingarten (2016)., Expert Evidence in Canada., http://www.bwdefencelaw.com/expert-evidence-Canada-Mohan, 02.04.2016.
- Kumar M. (2005)., Krishan Chand vs Sita Ram., AIR P & H 156, All India Reporter, Punjab & Haryana High Court.
- Paranjape N.V. (2012)., Criminology & Penology with Victimology., 15th Edition, Reprinted, Central Law Publications, Allahabad, India, 642-660.
- MHA, India (2016)., Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System., Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India,http://www.mha.nic.in/hindi/sites/upload_files/mhahindi/files/pdf/criminal_justice_system.pdf, 7.04.2016.
- The Code of Criminal Procedure (1973)., Reports of certain Government scientific experts., Reference: Section 293 of The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrP.C).
- Murtaza I. (2014)., Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of U.P., 5 SCC 509, SCC(Supreme Court Cases).
- The Supreme Court of United States of America (1993)., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, Also referred in Dharam Deo Yadav vs State of U.P, (2014) 5 SCC 509, SCC (Supreme Court Cases).
PRESS RELEASE - Forensic Solutions, LLC
Victims of violent crime are too often studied as stereotypical groups rather than as complex individuals. Investigators are too often pressured to accept or question victim statements based on emotional and political considerations. And worse, the justice system treats many victims as mere witnesses for the prosecution, rating their character with subjective moral standards, rather than perceiving them as real people who have suffered harm and need help. The result is less informed research, less informed investigations, and less informed legal outcomes. So argues the new textbook Forensic Victimology(Elsevier Science, 2009) coauthored by forensic scientist and criminal profilerBrent Turvey of Alaska, and Wayne Petherick, PhD, an Associate Professor of Criminology at Bond University on the Gold Coast, Australia.
In part, the current state of academic affairs has to do with the way that different victim groups are regarded by the police and courts, and then researched and taught by theoretical criminologists. There is a tendency to avoid asking tough questions of culturally sympathetic victims, such as those who have been raped, and a desire to punish others who may be regarded as immoral or complicit, such as drug addicts and prostitutes, Dr. Petherick explains.
“Victimology, which is a sub-discipline of criminology, is meant to be the scientific study of victims. But it is taught at university almost exclusively through a narrow lens that involves feminist and restorative perspectives bundled with less than reliable victim crime data,” states Dr. Petherick. “Unfortunately, too many lecturers are there to push a particular agenda or ideology when neutrality is what’s needed. That tends to put a lot of our best students off. It’s at best naive and at worst politicized. This needs to change.”
![Criminology Penology And Victimology By Paranjape Pdf Blogspot.com Criminology Penology And Victimology By Paranjape Pdf Blogspot.com](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_dE-qoYRroU/U8ajo4t94CI/AAAAAAAAASI/nLNF-Dy499c/w1200-h630-p-nu/Victimology-Doerner-William-G-9781437734867.jpg)
Turvey agrees. “Science is skeptical. It asks questions. And it assumes nothing. Lose the freedom to doubt and we lose our ability to understand problems, let alone solve them,” he explains.
Turvey, a court qualified forensic expert who has worked rape and homicide cases for law enforcement and attorneys since the mid 1990s, sees the current landscape of victimology as one overpopulated with advocates – some by job title and some by way of personal philosophy. “It seems as though much of victimology has become the property of those with social and even political agendas. There is more to victimology than that – substantially more.”
For Turvey and those like him, victim study is not about broad or obscure theory; it is applied and specific – a necessary component of investigating violent crime. “My job is to figure out what happened and why. That means getting the facts. And that means asking tough questions to victims and about victims in every case – no matter what. My experience has been that politics and personal beliefs immediately get in the way of that.”
For more than ten years, Petherick and Turvey have collaborated on casework and teaching projects in both the United States and Australia. In their work, they have repeatedly been confronted by the same types of problems with respect to victims of crime: some witnesses lie about victims, some victims lie about what happened to them, and some people lie about being victims. And that’s when victim evidence is collected at all. In the current culture, the way that victims are investigated and studied, it is difficult to address this without offending someone – whether it be the victim, a victim’s advocate, an investigator, an attorney, or a judge.
They came to realize that the solution to these problems was already there, if buried beneath competing agendas. The solution was to reboot victimology as a truly scientific study with investigative and forensic implications.
Forensic Victimology as a field is defined by the authors as the scientific study of victims for the purposes of addressing investigative and forensic issues. It involves the skeptical investigation of facts and a thorough examination of the evidence. Forensic victimology, explains Turvey, provides a scientific balance against the idealization or demonization of victims, a filter for deception and false reporting, and the means for identifying a threshold of relevance for victim information and opinions already at work in the criminal justice system.
They write: “the forensic victimologist is best conceived as an objective, dispassionate, and above all scientific examiner. They are critical and skeptical, and they put the establishment of fact before politics or any other consideration. To that end, they take nothing for granted, look for corroboration of any alleged victim’s statements, seek out collateral sources of information, and investigate alternate or contributing motives for victim behavior. Most importantly, the forensic victimologist is barred from assuming that alleged victims must have been victimized. For their purposes, victimity must be established unequivocally and may not be asserted simply for ideological purposes. They investigate as scientists, they report as educators, and they understand the gravity of their eventual courtroom testimony.”
The result of their work and research is a colloborative textbook, Forensic Victimology, published in October of 2008 by Elsevier Science out of San Diego, California, with chapters contributed by a range of professionals whose work involves interpreting victim evidence. “It gives students basic methodology, and professional victimologists the permission to think, teach, and act like scientists,” explains Turvey. Dr. Petherick goes further, arguing “It moves victimology from the theoretical study of victim groups through the lens of radical agendas to an applied scientific discipline that helps solve crime and resolve legal questions. It is where criminology needs to be.”
__________________________________________________________
![Criminology Criminology](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jpv3BhAVeqE/U8VR8b2XaeI/AAAAAAAAARs/7FIY4aHGzs0/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/Physics.jpg)
Brent E.Turvey, MS, also author of Criminal Profiling, 3rd Ed. with Elsevier Science (2008), can be reached at [email protected].
Wayne A. Petherick, PhD, also author of Serial Crime with Elsevier Science (2005), can be reached at [email protected].