History of Forensic Medicine in Ceylon by Dr. M. S. L. Salgado
History of Forensic Medicine
in Ceylon by Dr. M.S.L. Salgado
He passed away before he could complete the profiles of 3 JMO, which remain incomplete).
- Introduction
- The Civil Medical Department under Military Control
- Legislation relating to Homicides or other Sudden or Violent Deaths
- Inquests
- Coroners and Deputy Coroners
- First Scientific Paper on Medico-Legal Work
- Post mortem Examinations
- Appointment of Inquirers
- Judicial Medical Service
- Medical and Sanitary Services Department
- Office of the JMO at the Medical College
- Dr. N. Sinnadurai 1935 -1945
- Interim Arrangements
- Dr. G.S.W. de Saram 1947 – 1951
- Interim Arrangements
- Office of the JMO at No. 111, Francis Rd. Colombo 10
- JMOO who held Office at 111, Francis Rd. Colombo 10
- Dr. P.S. Goonewardena 1953 – 1956
- Dr. W.D.L. Fernando 1956 – 1970
- Dr. D.C.P. Amarasekera 1970 – 1977
- Dr. S. Sivasbramaniam 1977 – 1982
- Dr. M.S.L. Salgado 1982 – 1990
- Dr. Sydney Premathirathne 1990 – 1992
- Dr. L.B.L. de Alwis 1992 – 2007
- Dr. Ananda Samarasekera 2007 – 2013
- Dr. Ajith Tennakoon 2014 to date
- Office of the JMO/IFMT today
- Services provided by the Office of the JMO/IFMT
- Public Face of the JMO
- Giving evidence in the Lower Courts
- Giving Evidence before the Supreme Court/High Courts
- Expert Evidence / Opinion
- Evolution of Forensic Medicine
- Father of Forensic Medicine
- Comments
Introduction
It was during the British period from 1796 to
1948 that formal legal systems were introduced and medical knowledge was harnessed
to administer the law. Legislation relating to homicides was first introduced
in 1819, the Coroner’s system was formally introduced in 1843, and the Judicial
Medical Service commenced in 1880. The Office of the Judicial Medical Officer,
Colombo at the Medical College was established in 1935 and it was in 1953 that
the Office was established at its present location, 111, Francis Rd. Colombo
10.
The Civil Medical Department under Military Control
The Civil Medical Department of Ceylon was
established in 1800, under the control of the military during the period of the
first Governor of Ceylon – Frederick North (1798-1805) in order to control an
epidemic of small pox. [1]
The Inspector General of Hospitals controlled both the Civil and Military
Medical Departments since 1802.
Legislation relating to Homicides or other Sudden or Violent Deaths
Among the duties of a colonial Medical Officer[2] in
British East Africa were the following:
“Supplementary
duties of a MO included medico-legal work such as acting as police surgeon,
undertaking the duties of expert witness, and attending executions. They were
also expected to conduct post mortems, issue death certificates,
................”
This
was the position in Ceylon too and it is well established on account of the
following legislation[3]
promulgated by the British:
Regulation No. 1 of
1819 on 6 February, 1819, on the subject of “Declaring of duties of Magistrates
and others in cases of Homicides or other Sudden or Violent Deaths”. .
Clause 6 of Regulation
No. 6 of 1823 stipulating that, if it is possible, a Medical Officer or Medical
Practitioner shall be called on to inspect the body and after such inspection,
examine such officer or practitioner as to the cause of death of the deceased.
A
Proclamation made on 24 January, 1822, later amended by a Proclamation of 21
May 1822, specifying the action to be taken in the case of death by violence,
accident, and sudden or unexpected death
Therefore,
Medical Officers in Ceylon who were then attached to the military or were
general medical practitioners, were called upon to attend to medico-legal work,
at least from 1819 onwards, if not from an earlier period.
Inquests
Major
Jonathan Forbes[4]of
the 78th Highlanders refers to an inquest held at the time (between
1826 and 1837) as follows: “An inquest, in every violent, sudden or suspicious
case of death, was an ancient Kandian institution and their inquests like most
of their customs or laws, only required the superintendence of those who had no
private ends in view, to render them in practice, as they were in theory, well
adapted for the protection of life and property.” He states that the inquest
was held into the accidental death of a Mohameddan fisherman and that the
verdict was given by a Mohameddan jury.
Dr.
Henry Marshall has placed on record [5]
that in 1834 there were thirteen Coroner’s Inquests on persons killed by
elephants. (Although he uses the term Coroner, the Coroners’ system was
formally introduced in 1843).
The
Supplement to the Ceylon Government Gazette of 1834 [6]records,
among other matters, the following inquests:
Wed 8 Jan: Inquest: on
Dodangoddegay Awiege.
Sat. 18
Jan. Inquest: on Private James McLeish of HM
78th Regiment.
Wed 19 Feb: Inquest: on Private Andrew
Moyes of HM 78th Regiment.
Wed 25 Jun: Inquest: on
Bineregamegey Carolis de Silva, of Caltura. [Verdict: Murder]
Wed 2 Jul: Inquest in
District of Alupote: on Weeragaha Elly Geerebadana. [Verdict: Death caused by a
wild boar]
Sat 6 Dec: Inquest: At
Toppasyalencolom, in the district of Manaar, onMigel Marsall of that place.
[Verdict: Death caused by an Elephant].
Sat 13 Dec: Inquest: At Trincomalie onWierasy,
wife of Tanjaour Pallenyandy. [Verdict: Death occasioned by a kick received
from her husband during a quarrel, and while they were both in a state of
intoxication.] .
The
inquest referred to above is probably the tribunal known as “Saakki Balanda”[7]
which consisted of local officials of the district such as Lekam, Korale and
the Vidane and their role was apparently to inquire into “sudden unnatural
deaths”. It becomes clear therefore that the system of “Saakki Balanda” which
was followed in the Kandyan Kingdom continued to prevail during the Portuguese
and Dutch periods as well as the early British period.
Legislation[8] relating to the holding of
inquests by Coroners is found in Ordinance No. 8 of 1843 on 2 November,
1843.Its purpose was to “provide for the better holding of inquests touching
sudden and violent deaths.” Among its provisions, was the authority granted to
the Coroner to summon a medical practitioner who attended on the deceased to
testify at the inquest or to direct a medical practitioner to conduct a post
mortem examination.
It
would seem that Ordinance No. 8 of 1843 sought to streamline the existing
inquest procedure referred to by Jonathan Forbes and Dr. Henry Marshall above.
Coroners and Deputy Coroners
The
following list of Coroners is reproduced from the
Ceylon-Almanac-and-Annual-Register 1856 -William Skeen, Government Printer,
Colombo Ceylon to show that the Coroner’s service was available throughout the
country during this period.
Coroners
Colombo: - J, Dalziel, Esq.
Kandy: - J.B. Graves, Esq.
Kurunegala :- W.H. Clarke, Esq. L.L.D.
Badulla: - E.H. Burrows, Esq.
Ratnapoora: - W. Barton, Esq.
Caltura: - G.H.de Saram, Esq.
Matara: - H. Pole, Esq.
Chilaw: - S.C. Chitty, Esq.
Mannar: - E.H. Smedley, Esq.
Nuwerakalawiya:- J.L. Flanderka, Esq.
Jaffna :-W.W. Hume, Esq.
Trincomalie :- E.H. Smedley, Esq.
Batticoloa :-J. Morphew, Esq.
For the Parishes of
Point Pedro, &c.in the District of Jaffna :-
L.F.Lieschiog , Esq.
Chavagachery,&c. in Jaffna :- D. Purcell, Esq.
Caits &c. in Jaffna :- S. Ambalavanan, Esq.
Mulletivoo :- F.H. Campbell, Esq.
For
the Divisions of
Three Korles, and Lower
Bulatgama &c. in the Districts of Ratnapoora, Kandy and Colombo :- W.N.
Robertson, Esq.
Three Korles, and Lower
Bulatgama &c. in the Districts of Kandy, Kurnegalle, and Ratnapoora :-L.N.
Atherton, Esq.
Kotmale, exceping the
Tispane Korle, Wallaane, &c. in the Districts of Badulla and Kandy :- R.
Temple, Esq.
Bentotte, Wallawitty
Corle, &c, in the District of Galle :- G. Stewart, Esq.
Talpapattoo, Gangebodde
Pattoo &c,. in the District of Galle :- C.P. Walker, Esq
Girrewapattoo in the
District of Tangalle :- J. Parsons, Esq.
Magampattoo in the
District of Tangalle :- W.C. Twynam, Esq.
Matelle in the District of
Kandy :- F. Layard Esq.
Dolosbagey. Upper
Bulatgame and Udapalata in the District of Kandy:- D.E. De Saram Esq.
Deputy Coroners
For
the District of
Colombo :- L. Jumeaux,
Esq.
Kandt, Kurnegalle, Colomvp
and Ratnapoora :- E.N. Atherton, Esq, E. Wijeyesinhe, Esq.
Maddawelletenne and
Kurnegalle :- E.W.A.W.R.M. Bandar, Esq.
Caltura :- J.C.C.
Abeykoon, Esq.
Chilaw:- W.W. Cairns, Esq.
Separate Civil Medical Department
The Civil Medical Department came under total
civilian control in 1858 and its first Principal Civil Medical Officer and
Inspector General of Hospitals was Dr. Christopher Elliott. [9].
Dr. Elliott is referred to as one of the leaders who agitated for a separate
civil medical department, as the Editor of the Colombo Observer, and as a
general medical practitioner. Dr. Elliott functioned as a Medical Officer in
Ceylon from 1836 up to the time of his death in 1859.[10]
First Scientific Paper on Medico-Legal Work
Dr. Uragoda[11]
refers to the case of a man from Chilaw who died after being given an emetic
containing Calatropis gigantica (Wara) by an ayurvedic physician. The man had
vomited and died soon afterwards. The stomach and intestines with their
contents had been sent to Dr. W.C. Ondaatjee, Assistant Colonial Surgeon for
examination in March 1864, and he had carried out an experiment by giving it to
a dog, which died two hours later. The ayurvedic physician had been sentenced
to two years imprisonment for manslaughter.
Dr. Ondaatjee had written a paper on the subject and published it. Dr.
Uragoda points out that this may be the first scientific paper on a
medico-legal topic to be published in Ceylon.
Post mortem Examinations
Reference
is made by Dr. Henry Marshall to the advantage of post mortem examinations[12]
in relation to an outbreak of dysentery in 1819 and 1820 as follows: “They are
often highly useful by leading to an accurate diagnosis of disease, and thereby
to a successful plan of cure. They are on other occasions of great importance,
by enabling us to distinguish curable from incurable diseases.” This may have
been the first time that such examinations were carried out for purposes of
study.
Evidence
[13] of a post mortem
examination given before the then Chief Justice, Sir Edward Creasy (1860-1875),
appears below:
“ The only Beekmeyer in Jaffna whom 1 saw
was the Colonial Surgeon. He had received only a local training in medicine and
surgery and had to attend on the prisoners in jail in the Fort. He used to go
about in what was known as a push-push—a vehicle, curiously constructed, with a
man in front drawing it and another pushing it from behind. In murder cases his
duty was to perform post-mortem examinations as best he could He got on
very well before Justice Temple, but one
day, unfortunately for him, he was called in to give evidence before Sir Edward
Creasy.
A question arose in the course of trial
as to the direction in which the knife had travelled after it had entered the
body of the deceased. The doctor said he had made a careful autopsy, And gave
particulars. ''What instrument did you use, Sir ? " asked the Chief.
"A pakotes," replied the doctor, with some hesitation, " A
pakotes ? " exclaimed the Chief, " and what is a pakotes? " he
asked. The doctor stammered and stuttered, and not being ready with the
description of the instrument, said: " A pakotes is a .a pakotes ".
This put the Chief Justice in a good
humour, and he appealed to the Interpreter, thinking it was a Tamil word, for
an explanation of the meaning of the word. "The word, my Lord," said
the Interpreter, "is I think, a Portuguese, or Italian word, and is
pronounced Pakotti, and means an arecanut cutter, something like a pair of
sharp scissors"
It presently transpired that the doctor was not provided with
surgical instruments and had to perform post-mortem examinations with any sharp
instrument that came handy. The good old doctor was ever afterwards known as
"Dr. Pakotti" , .which he did not mind at all. It was remarked that
the Chief bowed to him politely on his leaving the witness box. The doctor, and
some others thought that the Chief was pleased with his knowledge of surgery
and his skill as a surgeon, but I am afraid there were many others who thought
differently.”
The position was not much different 100 years
later, in the outstations, as described by Dr.L.B.L.de Alwis, Retired Chief
Consultant JMO, Colombo (1992-2007) when he carried out his first post mortem
in 1974, as a Medical Officer[14]:
“I went with
the police to the “scene of murder” which was on the banks of the Ma-oya at
Walakumbura bordering the Colombo-Kurunegala main road close to Alawwa. There
was a bloated decomposed body of a male lying on a ‘Messa”, a makeshift autopsy
table in village style. At that time police constables wore shorts. One such
constable was carrying a shot gun possibly to prevent the body from being
attacked by several ‘Kabaragoyas’ who were roaming about the ‘Messa’. I was also
in mortal fear that the Kabaragoyas would attack me as well, during the
postmortem examination or there may be a misfire hitting me as the police
constable carrying the gun appeared to be drunk and unsteady. However, I
carried out the postmortem examination and arrived at the cause of death as due
to blunt craniocerebral trauma.
But today such a post-mortem examination would not be
carried out even by a senior District Medical Officer but referred to the
Provincial Judicial Medical Officer or even to the chief JMO Colombo when the
provincial JMO is not available causing much inconvenience to the relatives and
the police officers.”
It
is on record[15]
that Dr Edwin Lawson Koch M.D. F.C.S.L. C.M Aberdeen , Principal of the Ceylon
Medical College, died in 1877 as a result of a slight scratch he sustained in
the course of a post mortem examination . The efforts of the best doctors at
the time, including Dr. William Kynsey had failed to save his life.
Appointment of Inquirers
Ordinance
No. 8 of 1843 was repealed[16]
with the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1883 which provided for
the conduct of inquiries by Police Magistrates appointed by the Governor and
referred to as Inquirers.
The
Code of 1883 was repealed with the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code No.
15 of 1898.
The
law relating to the conduct of inquests outlined in the Code of 1898 remained
in force until the Code of Criminal Procedure 1979 came into operation.
The
1979 Code required that all cases of murder, suspicious deaths, deaths in
police custody, prisons and mental hospitals etc. must be inquired into by a
Magistrate
Judicial Medical Service
The
Judicial Medical Service commenced in 1880 and consisted mainly of Medical
Officers, who had passed out of the Ceylon Medical College, which was
established in 1870, and those who had acquired medical qualifications in
England. None of these Medical Officers however, had any training or
qualifications in Forensic Medicine.
The
term Judicial Medical Officer[17]
was first given in 1880 to Dr. E. Gratiaen, L.F.P. & S (Glasgow) who was
the Medical Officer of H.M. Prisons in Colombo, on his being assigned
medico-legal work in Colombo.
Dr.
C.P. De Fonseka, LMS (Ceylon) of Panadura had held the post of Judicial Medical
Officer, Panadura from 1889 to 1903, when he retired.[18]
Dr.
F.W. Goonetillke, LMS (Ceylon) had held the post of Judicial Medical Officer,
Colombo in the late 1890s.[19]
Some
others who held office as Judicial Medical Officer are as follows [20] :
1896 F Oorloff –
M.B., C.M. Aberdeen – M.O , Police and Branch Hospital, Judicial Medical
Officer
1901 Allan de
Saram – M.B., C.M. Aberdeen – Judicial Medical Officer, Colombo.
1903 H Bawa –
F.R.C.S. & L.R.C.P. Edinburgh – Judicial Medical Officer
1904 R.G.
Spittel – L.R.C.P. & S Edinburgh, L.F.P. & L.F.S. Glasgow – Judicial
Medical Officer, Colombo.[21]
1905 Dr. W.C.
Pieris Siriwardena – M.B. C.M. Aberdeen – Judicial Medical Officer, Panadura.
The
degree of M.B. C.M. Aberdeen refers to the Bachelor of Medicine and Master of
Surgery degree of the University of Aberdeen.
Medical and Sanitary Services Department
The
original Civil Medical Department was renamed the Medical and Sanitary Services
Department in 1925[22]
with the amalgamation of the Public Health activities with the General Health
Services’
The
Medical and Sanitary Services Department’s major contribution to forensic medicine
was made in 1933 when its then Head, Sir Rupert Briercliffe, in consultation
with Sir Sydney Smith, sent Dr. N. Sinnadurai to the University of Edinburgh
for training under him in forensic medicine. [23]
Office of the JMO at the Medical College
Dr. N. Sinnadurai 1935 -1945
The Office of the JMO was established at the Medical College in 1935 on the return of Dr. N. Sinnadurai after acquiring post graduate training and qualifications in Forensic Medicine at the University of Edinburgh. He was appointed Judicial Medical Officer (JMO) Colombo and part-time Lecturer in the Medical College which was then under the control of the Medical and Sanitary Services Department.
Therefore,
it was over 50 years after the establishment of the post of JMO that a Medical
Officer with post graduate qualifications in forensic medicine assumed this
post.
Dr.
Sinnadurai, M.D. (Lond) was referred to as Judicial Medical Officer of Ceylon
when he was invited to deliver a lecture to the Medico-Legal Society on “The
Evolution of Medico-Legal Science “ on 26.08.1938.
Dr.
Sinnadurai was provided with a well-equipped laboratory and other facilities to
carry out his work but the facility was housed in the Medical College.
Dr.
Sinnadurai made an attempt to initiate a judicial medical service in the
provinces which was to be managed by trained medical officers, but it did not
become a reality as the Medical Department continued to appoint medical
officers who had no special training to the provinces to handle medico legal
duties.
In
the year 1940, the post of JMO Colombo, which was up to that time held on a
part-time basis, was made a full-time office. However, Dr. Sinnadurai continued
as part-time Lecturer in the Medical College.
In
1945 Dr. Sinnadurai passed away after a brief illness and the post of JMO fell
vacant. Dr. Sinnadurai ‘s work as JMO was highly appreciated by both Bench and
Bar, according to Sir Sydney Smith.
Interim Arrangements
Dr. G.S.W. de Saram and Dr. G.R. Handy took over the work done by Dr. Sinnadurai. Dr. de Saram attended to the Forensic Medicine Laboratory work and teaching at the Medical College while Dr. Handy covered the work of the JMO.
Dr.
de Saram, [24]
too, was sent to the University of Edinburgh for training under Sir Sydney
Smith in 1946 and while he was away the post of Acting JMO and Acting Lecturer
in Forensic Medicine was held by Dr. P.S. Gunawardena, who was Assistant to Dr.
Sinnadurai.
Dr. G.S.W. de Saram 1947 – 1951
Dr. de Saram was appointed as JMO Colombo and Lecturer in the Medical College on his return from the UK in 1947
Dr.
de Saram obtained his LMS (Ceylon) in 1922 and graduated from St. Bartholomew’s
Hospital a year later. He joined the Government Medical Service in 1925 and was
appointed Pathologist at the General Hospital, Colombo in 1938. He functioned as
the JMO Colombo and Lecturer in the Medical College from 1947 to 1951, when he
was appointed to the Chair in Forensic Medicine at the University of Ceylon. He
became Ceylon’s first Professor in Forensic Medicine.
Among
the cases he figured in, was the sensational Colombo Turf Club Robbery and
Murder, and the forensic aspects of this case were recorded by him in a paper
titled “An Unusual Case of Murder by Asphyxia “[25] but
he is best known for his role as a forensic expert in the sensational trial of well-known
cricketer M. Sathasivam for the alleged murder of his wife, where, among other
matters, his opinion on the time of the
alleged murder, as opposed to the opinions expressed by Dr. Milroy Paul,
Professor of Surgery and Dr. M.V.P. Peiris, Associate Professor of Surgery,
appears to have swayed the jury to
return a verdict of ‘Not guilty’.
Incidentally, it was as the Professor of Forensic Medicine at the
University that he was called upon to conduct the autopsy in this case,
although in normal circumstances it would have been the JMO Colombo who would
have conducted the autopsy. Dr de Saram
had numerous research publications to his credit.
Interim Arrangements
Dr.
de Saram was succeeded by Dr. Smith, who was Dr. de Saram’s Assistant and he
continued to use the facility which was housed in the Medical College for
medico-legal work.
At
the beginning of March 1951, Dr. P.S. Goonewardena[26]
was appointed acting JMO Colombo. Dr.
Goonewardena’s work was confined to the day-to-day medico legal activities with
no academic involvement in the Medical College, but occupied rooms at the
Medical College.
Office of the JMO at No. 111, Francis Rd. Colombo 10
Dr.
Goonewardena was formally appointed as the JMO Colombo in 1953 and as the
Medical College required him to vacate the rooms there, he was provided office space
and other facilities at No. 111, Francis Rd. Colombo 10. This complex is said
to have been the property of Mr. Susew de Soyza, Mudaliyar of the Governor’s
Gate, who later donated the premises to
the Ministry of Health. The complex was initially named as the Medico-Legal
Morgue and the Office of the JMO.
At
this time, the JMO Colombo and his assistants used to visit the morgues at the
General Hospital, Lady Ridgeway Hospital, De Soyza Maternity Hospital, Castle
Street Maternity Hospital, and the Mental Hospital, Angoda whenever they were
called upon to do so. They also carried
out post mortem examinations at police morgues in Borella, Kollupitiya,
Wellawatte, Modera and Foreshore Police Station. However, cold storage
facilities were available only at General Hospital Colombo and Mental Hospital,
Angoda.
Therefore,
it was at this stage that the Medical and Sanitary Services Department ceased
to have control over the work of the JMO, whose office came under the Ministry
of Health, but by then the department had provided post graduate training in
forensic medicine in the UK to at least two Medical Officers, and a third, Dr.
W.D.L. Fernando, was under training at the University of Edinburgh, and had prepared
the groundwork for a judicial medical service. The Office of the JMO, later
renamed the Institute of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, was established at
its present premises as an independent entity in 1953. Prior to that from 1935
to 1953 the JMO occupied rooms at the Colombo Medical College.
JMOO who held Office at 111, Francis Rd. Colombo 10
Dr. P.S. Goonewardena 1953 – 1956
It
was at this time that the government obtained the services of a WHO
Medico-Legal Consultant to study the position of medico-legal work in the
country and to assist in developing a plan for upgrading and improving the
medico-legal service. Sir Sydney Smith visited the country and submitted a
report incorporating numerous recommendations. Not all of his recommendations
were implemented due to financial and other constraints, but further
development of the service was undertaken based on his report.
Dr.
Goonewardena’s tenure as JMO lasted three years from 1953 to 1956 and he
figured in several famous criminal trials such as the following: Wellawatte
Dispensary Double murder case, the Thenuwara murder case and the Harbour murder
case.
Dr. W.D.L. Fernando 1956 – 1970
LMS
(Ceylon), MRCP (Edinburgh)
It was during his tenure of office that the Medico Legal Morgue
was established and equipped with refrigeration for storage of bodies.
The Office of the J.M.O which was housed in a part of the building
of the Colonial Library, facing Maradana Road, was also moved to the same
premises in Francis Road.
The housing of the office, laboratory and the autopsy room with
provision of coolers to store the bodies was of great significance, as it
obviated the previous practice of the J.M.O. and his Assistants having to do
autopsies in several hospitals in Colombo and in five mortuary rooms at five
police stations within the city. Only the General Hospital Mortuary had
refrigeration facilities up to that time.
Dr.
W.D.L. Fernando had a long and distinguished career and figured in some famous
criminal trials such as the following: The Wilpattu / Adeline Vitharane murder
case, The Kalattawa
murder case, The Lilian Perera murder case, The Dodampe Mudalai murder case, the Wicks Book Depot case, and
the Galle Face Jewellery Shop murder case.
Dr. D.C.P. Amarasekera 1970 – 1977
He
was for many years Deputy to Dr. W.D.L. Fernando and figured in several
important trials during that period as well as during his tenure as JMO. His
period coincided with the onset of the insurgency in the southern part of the
country.
Dr. S. Sivasbramaniam 1977 – 1982
He
figured in the sensational case involving the Revd. Mathew Peiris who was
charged with the murder of his wife and Russel Ingram. He and Prof. A.H. Sheriffdeen
conducted the pathological and judicial postmortem examinations on Russel Ingram
and Eunice Peiris. After an extensive series of tests which eliminated all
possible causes, the two victims were cleared of any disease which might have
caused their death.
Dr. M.S.L. Salgado 1982 – 1990
MBBS. (Cey.), DMJ. Clinical (Lond.), DMJ.
(Path.) (Lond.), MD. For. Med. (Colombo),
During
his tenure the Medico-Legal morgue was transformed into a fine forensic
facility with modern infrastructure as well as with human resources. Forensic
radiology and forensic photography facilities funded by the WHO were also introduced.
He streamlined procedures relating to medico-legal examinations and took the
initiative to improve the existing Medico-legal Examination Form, Medico-legal
Report Form and Post-mortem Report Form.
He
was also instrumental in obtaining funding from the World Health Organization
to conduct a training programme in Forensic Medicine for Medical Officers and a
large number of Medical Officers benefitted from this programme.
It
was during this period that the Indo-Pacific Association of Legal Medicine and
Science (INPALMS) was inaugurated in Colombo on 16 August, 1986 at the Second
Asia Pacific Congress, which was chaired by Dr. Salgado in his capacity as the
President of the Medico-legal Society. He played a leading role in the
activities of the INPALMS and was its President from 23 March 1984 to 19 June
1987.
Dr. Sydney Premathirathne 1990 – 1992
Dr. L.B.L. de Alwis 1992 – 2007
MBBS
(Cey), DLM (Colombo), MD (Colombo)
Dr. Alwis has the distinction of having worked in the Office of the JMO, Colombo since 1980 as AJMO, and holding the post of JMO Colombo for a period of 15 years from 1992.
His
tenure of service coincided with the escalation of terrorist activities in the
country and he was the chief medico-legal investigator in all mass disasters
that occurred in Colombo following bomb explosions.
He carried out nearly 11,000
post-mortems examinations which included nearly 2000 murders. Among them were
assassinations of a President, Presidential candidate, other Ministers, Members
of Parliament, politicians and other persons of eminence. He figured in the
Attorney at Law, Wijedasa Liyanaarchchi murder case, the Krishanthi Kumaraswami
murder case and the High Court Judge, Sarath Ambepitiya murder case.
Dr. de Alwis rendered invaluable
service to the development of Forensic Medicine and Forensic Pathology as a
specialty in the country, being instrumental in founding the College of
Forensic Pathologists of Sri Lanka in 2000 and serving as its founder
President.
Dr.
de Alwis was also Chairman, Board of
Study in Forensic Medicine and Chief Examiner in Forensic Medicine of the
Postgraduate Institute of Medicine, University of Colombo from 2000 to 2006.
Dr. Ananda Samarasekera 2007 – 2013
Dr. Samarasekera was the senior most specialist in Forensic Medicine working in the country at the time of his appointment. He also had a wealth of international experience in that he was the head of the Forensic Section of the Department of Justice of the United National Interim Administration (UNMIK) in Kosovo, former Yugoslavia and he also worked as a Forensic Pathologist in Bosnia for the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY).
As the chief JMO
Colombo North Teaching Hospital for fifteen years, Dr. Samarasekera was
involved in forensic medical investigation of several famous cases. He has done
over 15,000 post mortems and over 20,000 clinical examinations within and
outside Sri Lanka and given evidence as a Forensic Expert in local and
international courts. He was the Vice
President of the Sri Lanka Medical Council, President of the Government Medical
Officers Association (GMOA), President of the Medico – Legal Society, the President
of the College of Forensic Pathologists of Sri Lanka and the Secretary General
of the Indo-Pacific Association of Law, Medicine and Science (INPALMS).
Dr. Ajith Tennakoon 2014 to date
MD (USSR), DLM, MD(SL), Dip.For.Med.RCPA(Aus),
MFFLM(UK) , FFCFM(RCPA)
Dr. Tennakoon is a former President of the College of Forensic Pathologists, a visiting Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Medicine in the University of Colombo, a post graduate Trainer and Examiner in Forensic Medicine since 2001, and member of the Board of Study in Multidisciplinary Study Courses, of the Post Graduate Institute of Management of the University of Ceylon, which conducts training programmes and examinations in Forensic Medicine and Health Sector Disaster Management.
His
international exposure includes the following:
·
Resource Person for the
International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims in Training of Doctors
in using Istanbul Protocol since 2008
·
Member of Advisory Panel
appointed to revise UN Manual on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of
Extra-Legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions in 2015
·
Member of the Working
Committee of the Asia Pacific Medico-Legal Agencies (APMLA)
He also holds membership of several
local organizations involved in medico-legal work.
He and the ICRC jointly
developed a pilot project on Minimum Quality Assurance to be implemented at the
IFMT in 2016 to improve mortuary operations by standardizing and centralizing procedures
and training non-medical staff to manage forensic data and human remains more
efficiently and humanely.
He is
figuring in several important and controversial ongoing investigations.
Office of the JMO/IFMT today
The
Office of the Judicial Medical Officer, Colombo provides medico-legal services
in Sri Lanka. It was re-named The Institute of Forensic Medicine
and Toxicology, and is headed by the Chief Judicial Medical Officer,
Colombo assisted by several Assistant JMOs. It provides a variety of
medico-legal services including training opportunities in Forensic Medicine. It
is situated at No. 111, Francis Rd. Colombo 10.
Services provided by the Office of the JMO/IFMT
·
Medico Legal Examination of patients,
victims and accused persons
·
Child Abuse Examination and Sexual
Assault Forensic Examination. Institute has of a child friendly waiting and
examination room
·
Autopsy to find cause of Death and
related medico-legal issues
·
Giving expert evidence in courts
·
Forensic Odontology expert advice
·
Forensic Histopathology Laboratory
service
·
Forensic Anthropology Laboratory services
·
Toxicology analysis and other laboratory
services
·
Specialized Forensic Photography
Services
·
Mortuary facility for Autopsies conducted
by the staff of Faculty of Medicine University of Colombo
·
In-service training for various
medico-legal aspects for MO-Medico Legal and other grade medical officers
·
Post Graduate Training for the fields of
Diploma in Legal Medicine, MD Forensic Medicine, Diploma in Pathology, MD
Pathology, Diploma in Family Medicine, MSc in Medical Administration, Diploma
in Disaster management and Forensic Psychiatry
·
Museum of Medico legal related specimens.
·
Library Facility on Medico legal related
books.
Public Face of the JMO
One
of the important duties of the JMO was/is to give evidence on clinical/post
mortem examinations done by him or to give his expert opinion in criminal
cases, in the Supreme Court, in particular and in the lower courts in general.
Giving evidence in the Lower Courts
Regulation No. 1 of
1819 on 6 February, 1819, was promulgated on the subject of “Declaring of
duties of Magistrates and others in cases of Homicides or other Sudden or
Violent Deaths”.
Clause 6 of Regulation
No. 6 of 1823 stipulated that, if it is possible, a Medical Officer or Medical
Practitioner shall be called on to inspect the body and after such inspection,
examine such officer or practitioner as to the cause of death of the deceased.
Therefore,
from as far back as 1823, Medical Officers were directly associated with
homicides or other Sudden or Violent Deaths and they were required to give
evidence in person on oath at inquests before Magistrates / Coroners on the
cause of death, and where necessary, in the lower courts.
This
practice continued for nearly 150 years until the enactment of the Administration
of Justice Law No. 1 of 1974, (and later, No. 44 of 1978) which permitted
courts of law to accept Medico-Legal Reports and Medico-Legal Examination Forms
and other Reports from Medical Officers. This was a recognition that the
presence of Medical Officers was not required to give evidence on routine
medical matters.
Giving Evidence before the Supreme Court/High Courts
The trial by jury before the Supreme Court was
introduced in 1810, even before the capture of the Kandyan Kingdom, and it is
described [27]as
follows:
“From the year 1802, the
period at which the first royal Charter of Justice for the island of Ceylon was
published on that island to the year 1811, justice had been administered in the
Supreme Court of Ceylon, both in civil and criminal cases, by two European judges,
according to what is called in Holland the Dutch-Roman Law, without any jury.
In 1810, it was determined by His
Majesty’s ministers in England, on the representation of Sir Alexander
Johnston, that the two European Judges on the Supreme Court on the island
should for the future, in criminal cases, be judges only of the law, and that
juries composed of natives of the island should be judges of the fact in all
cases in which any native prisoners were concerned, In November, 1811,
accordingly , a new royal Charter of Justice , under the great seal of England,
was published in Ceylon, by which amongst other things, it was in substance
enacted that every native of the island, of whatever caste or religious
persuasion he might be, when tried for a criminal offence before the Supreme
Court , should have the right of being tried by a jury of his own caste, and
that the right of sitting upon juries, in all such cases, should extend ,
subject to certain qualifications to every half-caste , and to every other
description of native upon the island, to whatever caste or religious
persuasion he might belong.”
The
jury system exists even today subject to certain modifications.
The
Medical Officers of the time and later those designated as JMOs in the early
stages performed the routine duty of giving evidence in the Supreme Court in
support of the case for the prosecution whenever they were summoned to do so. The
practice continues to this day before the High Courts and the evidence they give
is subject to cross-examination.
As a matter of interest, it was in 1933,
October 15, that the case known as the Duff House Murder, took place. The
accused in this case was a Cambridge – educated non practicing barrister,
Stephen Seneviratne, who was charged with committing the murder of his wife,
Lilian Roslin de Alwis, sister of Leo de Alwis, a son-in-law of Sir Solomon
Dias Bandaranaike, allegedly through the use of chloroform. At the trial
presided over by Justice M.T. Akbar, he was found guilty by a 5-2 verdict of
the jury and sentenced to death, on June 14, 1934. The sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment.
The
case went up to the Privy Council on appeal, and the appeal was allowed and the
death sentence was quashed.
Among
the eminent medical personalities who gave evidence in this case were Dr. S.C. Paul who was F.R.C.S. and Doctor of Medicine
(Madras), Dr. T.S. Nair, an L.R.C.P. and S. (Edinburgh) and Faculty of
Physicians (Glasgow), Dr. Milroy Paul,
the son of Dr. S.C. Paul, an F.R.C.S. (England), M.R.C.P. (London) and M.D.
(London), Dr. J.S. de Silva, an M.B. and Master of Surgery (Aberdeen), Dr. R.L.
Spittel, F.R.C.S. (England) and Dr. Karunaratne, an M.D. of London, who was in
Government service as a pathologist
Deputy
Solicitor General M.W.H. de Silva with Crown Counsel H.L. Wendt and Police
Superintendent J.R.G. Bantock and Dr. M.V.P. Pieris appeared for the
prosecution. Dr. Pieris assisted in the examination of the medical witnesses.
R.L.
Pereira K.C., H.A.P. Sandrasagara K.C. and Stanley Obeysekera K.C., with Eric
Soysa and P.H.P. Jayatilleke appeared for Stephen Seneviratne.
Justice
M.T. Akbar K.C. presided.
The
Appeal came up before Lord Maugham, Lord Roche and Sir George Rankin. D. B.
Sommerville KC (Attorney General of England), with L. M. D. De Silva KC
appeared for the AG of Ceylon, while Seneviratne was represented by H. I. P.
Hallet KC and R. L. Pereira KC.
The full judgement of the Privy Council can be accessed at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2464T.
It makes interesting reading in view of the complexities of this case and the
opinions expressed in the course of the medical evidence.
In
the above case, it will be noted that although there were eminent doctors who
had specialized in their own fields, none of them had specialized training or
qualifications in forensic medicine. There was none to give expert forensic
evidence on the medical aspects of the case and they also gave conflicting
evidence from the point of view of their own specialties.
The
first time in which expert evidence was given by a person who had specialized
training and qualifications in a sensational case was when Dr. de Saram (later
Professor) figured in the case in which a well-known cricketer, M. Sathasivam,
was charged with the alleged murder of his wife on 9 October, 1951. The medical
evidence in the case is briefly summed up by Stephen Prins in an article which
appeared in the Sunday Times of 26.10.2014 as follows:
“The when and the where of the case was the grounds on which the
legal and medical experts collided and clashed. Dr. Milroy Paul and Dr. M. V.
P. Peiris, the two distinguished surgeons called in by the prosecution to give
evidence, crossed swords and surgical knives with the government forensic
specialist who had conducted the autopsy. Dr. Paul was Professor of Surgery at
the University of Colombo, and Dr. Peiris was Associate Professor of Surgery.
Determining the time of Ananda Sathasivam’s death was crucial.
Prof. G. S. W. (“Jed”) de Saram, who performed the autopsy, said death would
have occurred between 10.00 a.m. and 11.30 a.m. Dr. Paul and Dr. Peiris stood
by their estimate that death had occurred between 9.35 a.m. and 11.15 a.m.
G. S. W. de Saram, Professor of Forensic Medicine, University of
Colombo, based his approximation of time of death on his reading of the
victim’s body temperature at 6.55 p.m. on October 9, taken at the scene of the
crime. It should be noted that Prof. de Saram had insisted on doing the autopsy
alone, expressly rejecting the assistance of the Judicial Medical Officer. Also
considered in determining time of death was the body’s state of stiffening, or
rigor mortis, and the progress of food and liquid in the victim’s stomach,
which would indicate the lapse of time between breakfast and death. Prof. de
Saram started his autopsy on Ananda Sathasivam at the General Hospital Mortuary
at 7 a.m. on October 10, the day after the murder.
The Supreme Court trial began on March 20, 1953. Throughout the
57-day hearing, the courtroom was as packed with spectators, albeit on a
smaller scale, as the cricket stadiums and stands wherever Mahadeva Sathasivam
came out to bat.
The prosecution did not have a smooth time of it in trying to
nail down its case. Forensic expert Prof. G. S. W. de Saram’s estimate of the
probable time of death, between 10.00 and 11.30 a.m., was more favourable to
the defense than the prosecution. Tension developed between professor and
prosecution.
To further its case, the defense appealed to the eminent British
forensic expert Sir Sydney Smith, based at the University of Edinburgh. Sir
Sydney formed his initial impressions in remote mode, so to speak, from his
office in Scotland. All pertinent court documents were forwarded for his
scrutiny, including the testimony of his former student, Prof. G. S. W. de
Saram. Sir Sydney recreated the scene of the Bambalapitiya crime in his
Edinburgh laboratory. He wrote back, and his assessments were in effect an endorsement
of his ex-student’s findings. When Sir Sydney appeared at the Supreme Court
trial, his evidence substantially reinforced Prof. de Saram’s conclusions,
along with his own observations and elaborations, none of which contradicted
Prof. de Saram’s findings. Teacher and student were in accord. Their
conclusions reflected favourably on the accused, much to the satisfaction of
the defense.”
The
judge in this case was Justice Noel Gratiaen, Prosecuting Counsel was Asst.
Solicitor General T.S. Fernando and the defense team was led by Dr. Colvin R.
de Siva.
Mr. Sathasivam was acquitted in this case. A fuller description
of the case by Stephen Prins (2014) can be accessed at http://www.sundaytimes.lk/141026/sunday-times-2/three-act-tragedy-124423.html
In
the above case, the expert evidence given by Professor de Saram and Professor
Sydney Smith may have swayed the jury in addition to infirmities in the
prosecution evidence.
Expert Evidence / Opinion
Section
45 of the Evidence Ordinance applies to evidence given in court by experts. It
states as follows:
|
OPINIONS OF THIRD
PERSONS WHEN RELEVANT |
|
Opinions of experts. |
45. When the Court has
to form an opinion as to foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to
identity or genuineness of handwriting or finger impressions, palm
impressions or foot impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons
specially skilled in such foreign law, science, or art, or in questions as to
identity or genuineness of handwriting or finger impressions, palm
impressions or foot impressions, are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts. |
|
Illustrations |
|
(a) The question is, whether the death of A was caused by
poison. The opinions of experts as to the symptoms produced for the poison by
which A is supposed to have died are relevant. |
|
(b) The question is, whether A, at the time of doing a certain
act, was, by reason of unsoundness of mind, incapable of knowing the nature
of the act, or that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.
The opinions of experts upon the question whether the symptoms exhibited by A
commonly show unsoundness of mind, and whether such unsoundness of mind
usually renders persons incapable of knowing the nature of the acts which
they do, or of knowing what they do is either wrong or contrary to law, are
relevant. |
|
(c) The question is, whether a certain
document was written by A. Another document is produced which is proved or
admitted to have been written by A. The opinion of experts on the question
whether the two documents were written by the same person or by different
persons, are relevant. |
Some
of the guidelines in regard to the acceptance of expert evidence/opinion[28],
as laid down by the courts, are as follows:
“In a trial for murder the Judicial Medical
Officer of Colombo expressed the opinion that the skull produced in the case
was that of the deceased. He based his opinion entirely on the examination of a
superimposition of an enlarged photograph of the head of the deceased on a
photograph of his skull. There was, however, no evidence that the medical
witness was an expert on identification by superimposition of photographs.
Held, that it was not established that identification of dead persons by
superimposition of photographs was a science or art within the meaning of
section 45 of the Evidence Ordinance. The mere reference to the medical witness
as " Judicial Medical Officer, Colombo " was insufficient for the
purpose of making his evidence relevant under section 45 of the Evidence
Ordinance in regard to matters other than those which properly fell within the
functions of a medical officer.”
(1955) NLR 57 169
R vs Pinhamy
“The medical witness’s evidence alone is not conclusive evidence of the
identity of the deceased. It can only be taken as an item in the chain of
evidence that was led to establish hi identity.”
(1955) NLR 57 169
R vs Pinhamy
“When an expert is called to give evidence, the
side calling the witness should elicit from him his qualifications and
experience in order to establish to the satisfaction of the Court that he is a
person who is especially skilled in the science on which he is called to give
expert testimony. ......... Thus, the mere reference to a witness as a
‘Judicial Medical Officer, Colombo’ is insufficient for the purpose of
rendering his opinion relevant in regard to matters other than those properly
falling within the purview of a medical practitioner”
(1955) NLR 57 171
R vs Pinhamy
“There is no need to
determine, and indeed no means of determining, which (of the doctors) is right
and which wrong, but in the face of disagreement on the point between the
plaintiff’s witnesses, it is obvious that for the purposes of a judicial
decision on the question of negligence the opinions of the specialist must be
preferred.
(1954) 56 NLR 121 R vs Chapman
“It is a principle of
fundamental importance that an expert should be allowed to state his opinion
only on matters of which he possesses special knowledge or skill.”
(1968) 71 NLR 529 R vs Kularatne
“In
R vs Kularatne, the evidence of a Professor of Forensic Medicine and of an Asst
Govt Analyst was led by the prosecution to prove that there was potassium
arsenite in the stomach of the deceased. These experts gave their opinion on
the basis of criteria, an important part of which they themselves considered
unworthy of recommendation as a scientific fact. In these circumstances, in the
view of the Court of Criminal Appeal, the duty of the trial judge was to have
given a clear direction to the jury to disregard the opinion of the experts
altogether.:
(1968) 71 NLR 529 R vs Kularatne .
“The
expert should draw attention of the court to the details which influenced him
in reaching his decision, so that the court could independently, but with the
expert’s assistance, form its own opinion”
(1960) 61 NLR 524 R vs Gratiaen Perera
“The
weight to be attached to (expert opinion) would depend on the circumstances of
each case. The standing of the expert, his skull and experience, the care and
discrimination with which he has approached the question on which he is
expressing an opinion, and the extent to which he has called in aid the
advances of modern science to demonstrate to the court the soundness of his
opinion, are all matters which will assist the court in assessing the weight to
be attached to the fact of his opinion.”
(1961) 65 NLR 296 Charles Perera vs Motha
Evolution of Forensic Medicine
Comprehensive articles
on the following topics can be accessed at the links given below:
· Historical Landmarks of the Evolution of Forensic Medicine and Comparative Development of Medico-Legal Services in Sri Lanka by Ruwanpura R. P. & Vidanapathirana M. https://mljsl.sljol.info/articles/10.4038/mljsl.v6i1.7366/galley/5747/download/ [29]
History & Development of Forensic Medicine by Sir. Sydney Smith
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2068548/ [30]
Father of Forensic Medicine
[1]Mills A. Lennox, Ceylon under British Rule, 1795 – 1932. P.45.
[2] Cozier A, Practicing Colonial Medicine: The Colonial Medical
Service in British East Africa, P 77.
[3] Kodagoda Y, The Law and
Practice Relating to Inquests of Deaths, Hulftsdorp Law Journal, 2014 Vol.
1
[4] Forbes J. Eleven
Years in Ceylon – 1826 – 1837, P.92,93
[5]Marshall H, Ceylon: A General Description of the Island and its
Inhabitants. P. 12 and 13.
[7] Kodagoda Y. The Law and
Practice Relating to Inquests of Deaths, Hulftsdorp Law Journal, 2014 Vol.
1
[8] ibid
[9]Uragoda C.G., “Sir William Kynsey and the Development of Healthcare in Ceylon”, Journal of Medical Biography, Volume 1, August 1993
[10]https://www.irishancestors.ie/christopher-elliott-1809-1859/
[11] Uragoda C.G. History of Medicine in Sri Lanka, 1987. P 281
[12] Marshall H., Notes on the Medical Topography of the Interior of
Ceylon and on the health - 1821
[13] Journal of the Dutch Burgher Union of
Ceylon, VOL. XLVI, APRIL-JULY, 1956. Lenos. 2 & 3.
[15] Journal of the Dutch Burgher union, Vol. 24 No 1 - 1934
[16] Kodagoda Y. The Law and
Practice Relating to Inquests of Deaths, Hulftsdorp Law Journal, 2014 Vol.
1
[17]Smith, Sir Sydney, Report dated 27 April 1954 – WHO Organization
/Project Ceylon 22
[18]https://defonseka.com/front-page/people/dr-c-p-de-fonseka/
[19] Wright A, 20th Century Impressions of Malaya. P 642.
[20]Wright A, 20th Century Impressions of Ceylon P. 131
[21] Wright A, 20th Century Impressions of Ceylon P. 524
[23]Smith, Sir Sydney, Report dated 27 April 1954 – WHO Organization
/Project Ceylon 22
[24] Smith, Sir Sydney, Report
dated 27 April 1954 – WHO Organization /Project Ceylon 22
[26] Smith, Sir Sydney, Report
dated 27 April 1954 – WHO Organization /Project Ceylon 22
[28] Peiris G.L., The Reception of Evidence of Opinion: A Reappraisal of Traditional Attitudes, Sri Lankan Journal of Social Sciences, P 19 - 42
[29] Ruwanpura R.P. and Vidanapathirana M., Historical
Landmarks of the Evolution of Forensic Medicine and Comparative Development of
Medico-Legal Services in Sri Lanka. Medico-Legal Journal of Sri Lanka, 2017
[30] Smith Sir Sydney., History and Development of Forensic Medicine,
British Medical Journal, 1951
Comments
Post a Comment