Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG Practice Questions and MCQs
Practice Indian Medical PG questions for Admissibility of Evidence. These multiple choice questions (MCQs) cover important concepts and help you prepare for your exams.
Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG Question 1: What is the forensic method of identification that utilizes lip prints?
- A. Trichology
- B. Dactylography
- C. Poroscopy
- D. Cheiloscopy (Correct Answer)
Admissibility of Evidence Explanation: ***Cheiloscopy***
- **Cheiloscopy** is the scientific study of lip prints for human identification, based on the unique patterns of furrows on the human lips.
- These patterns are considered individual and permanent, making them useful in forensic investigations.
*Dactylography*
- **Dactylography** is the study of fingerprints, which involves analyzing the unique patterns of ridges and furrows on the fingertips for identification.
- It is one of the most widely used and reliable methods for personal identification in forensic science, but does not involve lip prints,
*Poroscopy*
- **Poroscopy** is a forensic technique that involves the examination of the pores on the ridges of fingerprints.
- It is used to individualize fingerprints when there is insufficient ridge detail, but it focuses on pores, not lip prints.
*Trichology*
- **Trichology** is the scientific study of hair and scalp.
- In forensics, it involves analyzing hair samples to determine characteristics such as origin, race, and presence of toxins, but not lip prints.
Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG Question 2: Disputed maternity can be solved by using the following tests, EXCEPT:
- A. Blood grouping
- B. HLA typing
- C. DNA fingerprinting
- D. Precipitin test (Correct Answer)
Admissibility of Evidence Explanation: ***Precipitin test***
- The **precipitin test** is used to determine the origin of a **blood sample**, specifically whether it is **human or animal blood**, by detecting species-specific proteins. It is not used for assessing maternity.
- This test is primarily employed in **forensic serology** to differentiate between blood from different animal species, making it irrelevant for paternity or maternity disputes.
*Blood grouping*
- **Blood grouping** (e.g., ABO and Rh systems) can be used to **exclude paternity or maternity** by comparing the blood types of the child, mother, and alleged father.
- If the child's blood type is incompatible with the alleged parents based on Mendelian inheritance, one or both can be excluded.
*HLA typing*
- **HLA typing** (Human Leukocyte Antigen) is a more powerful genetic marker system than ABO/Rh for determining paternity or maternity.
- It involves analyzing highly polymorphic genes on chromosome 6 that encode cell surface proteins, providing a more definitive means of **inclusion or exclusion**.
*DNA fingerprinting*
- **DNA fingerprinting** (also known as **DNA profiling**) is the **most accurate and widely accepted method** for resolving paternity and maternity disputes.
- It analyzes highly variable regions of DNA unique to each individual, providing a statistically strong basis for **inclusion or exclusion** by comparing genetic profiles.
Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG Question 3: Doctor or nurse disclosing the identity of a rape victim is punishable under the following section of IPC?
- A. Section 224A
- B. Section 226A
- C. Section 222A
- D. Section 228A (Correct Answer)
Admissibility of Evidence Explanation: ***Section 228A IPC***
- This section of the Indian Penal Code specifically deals with the **disclosure of the identity of a victim of rape and certain sexual offenses** (Sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376D, 376DA, 376DB, 376E).
- Making public the name or any matter that can reveal the identity of a rape victim by **any person, including doctors and nurses**, is a punishable offense.
- **Punishment**: Imprisonment up to **2 years** and fine.
- **Exception**: Disclosure is permitted only to authorized persons like police officers for investigation purposes.
- **Important**: This is now covered under **Section 72 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023**, which replaced the IPC.
*Section 224A*
- This is **not a valid or recognized provision** within the Indian Penal Code.
- It does not relate to offenses concerning privacy or the identity of sexual assault victims.
*Section 226A*
- This is **not a valid or recognized provision** within the Indian Penal Code.
- It does not pertain to the confidentiality of victims of sexual offenses.
*Section 222A*
- This is **not a valid or recognized provision** within the Indian Penal Code.
- There is no such specific section addressing disclosure of victim identity in the IPC.
Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG Question 4: Res ipsa loquitur is?
- A. Oral evidence
- B. Fact speaks for itself (Correct Answer)
- C. Medical maloccurrence
- D. Common knowledge
Admissibility of Evidence Explanation: ***Fact speaks for itself***
- **Res ipsa loquitur** is a legal doctrine meaning "the thing speaks for itself," implying that the very nature of an accident or injury suggests negligence.
- This doctrine is applied when an injury typically would not occur without **negligence**, and the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality causing the injury.
*Oral evidence*
- **Oral evidence** refers to testimony given verbally in court by a witness.
- While evidence is presented in court, "res ipsa loquitur" is a principle of inference, not a specific type of evidence.
*Medical maloccurrence*
- A **medical maloccurrence** is an undesirable or unexpected outcome in medical treatment that may or may not be due to negligence.
- It describes an event, whereas "res ipsa loquitur" is a legal principle used to infer negligence.
*Common knowledge*
- **Common knowledge** refers to facts or information that are generally known by the public.
- While the application of "res ipsa loquitur" might sometimes rely on common sense, it is a specific legal doctrine, not just a general acknowledgment of common facts.
Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG Question 5: Under which section of the CrPC can a rape accused be medically examined without their consent?
- A. Section 54 - Examination of arrested person by medical officer
- B. Section 84 - Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours
- C. Section 53 - Medical examination of accused without consent (Correct Answer)
- D. Section 82 - Proclamation for absconding persons
Admissibility of Evidence Explanation: ***Section 53 - Medical examination of accused without consent***
- **Section 53 of the CrPC** permits the medical examination of an arrested person, including a **rape accused**, without their consent when there are reasonable grounds to believe that such examination will afford evidence relevant to the commission of the offense.
- This provision is crucial for collecting **forensic evidence** (e.g., DNA samples, injuries, scratches, bite marks) that may prove or disprove the accused's involvement in the crime.
- The examination can be conducted by a **registered medical practitioner** at the request of a police officer not below the rank of Sub-Inspector.
- Section 53A specifically deals with medical examination of rape accused.
*Section 54 - Examination of arrested person by medical officer*
- **Section 54 of the CrPC** pertains to the examination of an arrested person by a medical officer **at the request of the arrested person** themselves.
- This is used to document **injuries or evidence of torture** while in custody, serving as a safeguard against custodial violence.
- It is a **protective measure for the accused**, not for evidence collection against them.
*Section 82 - Proclamation for absconding persons*
- **Section 82 of the CrPC** deals with issuing a **proclamation requiring absconding persons** to appear before the court.
- It is used when a person has absconded or is concealing themselves to avoid execution of a warrant.
- It has no connection with medical examination procedures.
*Section 84 - Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in 24 hours*
- **Section 84 of the CrPC** deals with the procedure when police investigation **cannot be completed within 24 hours** of arrest.
- It relates to the **detention of the accused** beyond the initial 24-hour period with magistrate's authorization.
- It does not address medical examination of the accused.
Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG Question 6: In civil negligence, onus of proof lies on -
- A. Police not below the level of sub inspector
- B. Judicial first degree magistrate
- C. Patients (Correct Answer)
- D. Doctor
Admissibility of Evidence Explanation: ***Patients***
- In civil negligence cases, the **onus of proof** (burden of proof) generally lies with the **plaintiff**, who is the patient (or their legal representatives) alleging negligence.
- The patient must demonstrate that the doctor owed a **duty of care**, breached that duty, and this breach directly caused their **injury** or harm.
*Police not below the level of sub inspector*
- The police are primarily involved in **criminal investigations** and maintaining law and order, not typically in initiating civil negligence claims or bearing the burden of proof in such cases.
- Their role in medical matters would usually be restricted to investigating potential **criminal acts**, such as severe assault or malpractice leading to death, rather than civil negligence.
*Judicial first degree magistrate*
- A magistrate is a **judicial officer** who presides over minor legal proceedings and preliminary matters, primarily in criminal cases.
- Magistrates are members of the judiciary and are responsible for **adjudicating** cases, not for initiating or proving negligence claims themselves.
*Doctor*
- While the doctor is the **defendant** in a medical negligence case, they do not bear the initial **onus of proof** to show they were not negligent.
- The doctor may have to present evidence to **rebut** the patient's claims, but the primary burden remains on the patient to establish negligence.
Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG Question 7: What is the most reliable method to determine the time of death within the first 24 hours after death?
- A. Livor mortis is fixed and cannot be displaced after 8-12 hours
- B. Rigor mortis appears first in smaller muscles and progresses to larger muscles
- C. Putrefaction begins immediately after death in all environmental conditions
- D. Algor mortis using rectal temperature with standard nomograms (Correct Answer)
Admissibility of Evidence Explanation: ***Algor mortis using rectal temperature with standard nomograms***
- **Algor mortis** (body cooling) measured via **rectal temperature** using standardized nomograms (such as **Henssge's nomogram**) is considered the **most reliable method** for estimating time of death within the first 24 hours.
- While environmental factors affect cooling rate, the use of **mathematical models and nomograms** that account for body weight, ambient temperature, and clothing make this method more **objective and reproducible** than other postmortem changes.
- Provides **quantitative data** that can be standardized, unlike the more subjective assessments of rigor or livor mortis.
*Rigor mortis appears first in smaller muscles and progresses to larger muscles*
- **Rigor mortis** follows **Nysten's rule** (progression from smaller to larger muscles), typically appearing within 2-6 hours, peaking at 12-24 hours.
- However, the **onset time is highly variable** depending on factors like ante-mortem physical activity, environmental temperature, and cause of death.
- The subjective nature of assessment and **significant individual variation** make it less reliable than temperature-based methods for precise time estimation.
*Livor mortis is fixed and cannot be displaced after 8-12 hours*
- **Livor mortis** (postmortem lividity) becomes fixed and non-blanchable after approximately 8-12 hours.
- While useful, the **wide time range** for fixation and the fact that it provides only a few discrete time points (appearance, confluence, fixation) make it less precise than continuous temperature measurements.
*Putrefaction begins immediately after death in all environmental conditions*
- This statement is **incorrect**. **Putrefaction** (bacterial decomposition) typically begins hours to days after death, heavily dependent on **environmental temperature** and humidity.
- Putrefaction is useful for estimating time of death **beyond 24-48 hours**, not within the first 24 hours as asked in this question.
Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG Question 8: The most specific test to detect blood stains is:
- A. Benzidine test
- B. Teichmann's test
- C. Spectroscopic test (Correct Answer)
- D. Orthotoluidine test
Admissibility of Evidence Explanation: ***Spectroscopic test***
- The **spectroscopic test** is considered the most specific for detecting blood stains because it identifies the characteristic absorption bands of **hemoglobin** and its derivatives.
- This test is highly definitive due to the unique **light absorption properties** of blood components, making it less prone to false positives compared to chemical tests.
*Benzidine test*
- The **benzidine test** is a sensitive preliminary test for blood but is **not specific**, as it reacts with other oxidizing agents (e.g., rust, certain plant peroxidases).
- It works by detecting the **peroxidase-like activity of hemoglobin**, leading to color changes but lacks confirmation of blood origin.
*Teichmann's test*
- **Teichmann's test** (hemin crystal test) is a moderately specific confirmatory test that produces **rhombic crystals of hemin** when heated with glacial acetic acid and a halide salt.
- While more specific than presumptive tests, it can sometimes produce **false-negative results** with old or degraded bloodstains and may be less sensitive than spectroscopy.
*Orthotoluidine test*
- Similar to the benzidine test, the **orthotoluidine test** is another **presumptive test** that detects the peroxidase-like activity of hemoglobin, resulting in a blue-green color change.
- It is **highly sensitive but not specific**, meaning it can also give positive reactions with other substances that have similar peroxidase activity, leading to potential false positives.
Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG Question 9: Which test is used for detecting gunshot residue?
- A. Lie test for Firearm injury
- B. Neutron activation analysis for firearm use (Correct Answer)
- C. Toluidine blue test
- D. Benzidine test for blood stain
Admissibility of Evidence Explanation: ***Neutron activation analysis for firearm use***
- **Neutron activation analysis (NAA)** is a highly sensitive and reliable method for detecting specific elements characteristic of **gunshot residue (GSR)**, such as **barium**, **antimony**, and **lead**.
- This technique works by irradiating samples with neutrons, causing them to emit gamma rays that are unique to each element, allowing for precise identification and quantification of GSR particles.
*Lie test for Firearm injury*
- A "lie test" typically refers to a **polygraph test**, which assesses physiological responses to detect deception, not physical evidence like gunshot residue.
- Polygraph tests are not used for identifying **firearm injury** or the presence of actual physical traces.
*Toluidine blue test*
- The **Toluidine blue test** is primarily used in dentistry to detect and delineate **dysplastic or malignant lesions** in the oral mucosa.
- It has no application in the forensic analysis of gunshot residue or firearm use.
*Benzidine test for blood stain*
- The **Benzidine test** was historically used as a preliminary test for the presence of **blood stains**, as it reacts with the heme component of hemoglobin.
- It is not used for detecting **gunshot residue** and has largely been replaced by safer and more specific tests due to its carcinogenic properties.
Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG Question 10: Dying declaration comes under:
- A. 291 CrPC
- B. Section 60 IEA
- C. Section 33 IEA
- D. Section 32 IEA (Correct Answer)
Admissibility of Evidence Explanation: ***Correct: Section 32 IEA***
- **Dying declaration** is admissible under **Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA)** as an exception to the rule against hearsay, because the declarant is unavailable.
- This section deals with statements made by a person who has died, especially concerning the cause of their death or the circumstances leading to it.
- Section 32(1) specifically covers statements made by a person as to the cause of their death or circumstances of the transaction which resulted in their death.
*Incorrect: 291 CrPC*
- **Section 291 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)** deals with evidence of formal character, specifically the method of proving previous convictions or acquittals.
- It does not pertain to the admissibility of dying declarations.
*Incorrect: Section 60 IEA*
- **Section 60 of the Indian Evidence Act** states that oral evidence must be direct, meaning it must relate to what the witness personally saw, heard, or perceived.
- Dying declarations are an exception to this **hearsay rule** but are not directly governed by Section 60.
*Incorrect: Section 33 IEA*
- **Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act** deals with the relevancy of evidence given in previous judicial proceedings.
- It allows for the use of testimony from a prior case if the witness is unavailable, but it does not specifically cover dying declarations.
More Admissibility of Evidence Indian Medical PG questions available in the OnCourse app. Practice MCQs, flashcards, and get detailed explanations.
