 and what better way to, as they say, start of a weekend and the weekdays, to have knowledge sharing from a person like Justice Pradeep Nandraj Yogi who is a former Chief Justice from Rajasthan as well as the Bobby High Court. And we were always looking forward to have meaningful sessions from different persons. And whenever we were taking sessions, we were getting a common name that we should bring Justice Pradeep Nandraj Yogi who is not only an epitome of knowledge but his knowledge sharing has always been a process where he unlocks different perspectives. Therefore, when unlocking part came, we thought why not take an issue under the criminal jurisprudence, what we say, the medical legal evidence and the site plan. As they say that in law colleges and law universities, one thing is common that they teach you what is the law but how to implement that particular perspective of law. What are the tools as they say that you can have the masalas but you do not know how to make the right dish and for that you have to have a good mentor or a good chef. And we may not have the good chef in the sense of the food parlance but yes, we have a chef who will help us to master these nuances of understanding the criminal jurisprudence in the same. So I have been sharing the introduction in English but we had requested Justice Pradeep Nandraj Yogi to primarily explain all these issues in Hindi. It facilitates everyone to understand the independence because such like topics normally we get in English but we are always looking upon the resource persons who can make our things understand in Hindi. We have to understand the medical legal reports and the site plans. And we have to make them understand that we will do it in a simplified process. And I hope that people will like these sessions because Justice Pradeep Nandraj Yogi is a very important issue because it is Friday and we will not take much time to request sir to share his insights. We are looking forward for that. Thank you Vikas, thank you. You said right in your introduction that when a child is born from a law faculty, he gets the same knowledge as what is the law. What is the law? But what is the law? This knowledge does not stay the same. How will you apply that law? This is a skill. And as someone said that it is very easy to understand what is the law. But until you understand why this law is, as they say, he who knows not the reason for the law, know it not the law, then when you do not know the reason for it, then that knowledge is a incomplete knowledge. So today's topic is our medical legal or site plan. If you look at the site plan, then it takes importance in the homicide cases. Their importance is in the homicide cases because if there is a non-homicide case, then victim testimony is given. And if the homicide happens, then through the evidence you say that the dead body speaks, the dead body also speaks. But the dead body speaks through expert opinions, who have seen that dead body, who have post-mortem on that dead body, and site plan. So today's topic is on the importance of medical legal evidence or site plan. Site plan is not considered substantive evidence. And the reason for that is that section 162 CRPC says that any statement given to the police officer during the stage of investigation, which is given, is inadmissible in evidence. And we know that other than section 27 of the evidence act, discovery of a fact, which is a fact discovered upon the statement made to a police officer during investigation, except for any police officer whose statement is given during investigation, then section 122 CRPC says that inadmissible in evidence is considered. And here, let me take a detour and explain. The first information report is section 157, 154. The statement is given during the stage of investigation. This statement is before investigation because there is an FIR mark on this statement. So the statement of 154, they are not considered to be hit by a Basad statement. Now, when the police officer says that I have shown this in the site plan on his statement, then the statement of the police officer is that during investigation, he told me this and he told me that. Therefore, this substantive evidence is not considered. But the importance of this is that if the maker of the statement is that the statement related to the site plan, then you can use the site plan to contradict it. Now, the importance of the site plan comes from this way when we will see in the future that in criminal trials, the evidence does not make a chain. It makes a web. So, first of all, if you look at medical legal evidence, then by and large, the primary document is the medical legal report, MLC. MLC is the first document that when a patient is injured or dead, the doctor looks at him first and then he looks at his pulse, he looks at the movement of his eyes and if he sees that his pulse is not there, his breath is not there, he does not react to the eyes of his eyes by hitting the torch, then he declares it brought dead. But in this, you see that there are some such columns that are very incriminating evidence. Now, if you look at MLC, the name of the patient is Bajit Tarsik. The next column age, 27 years, address, street number 14, house number Bhavan, Mahalla so and so, brought by, very important. Who brought him? He brought him with Ram Prashad and then he writes, patient brought dead. If we think of it in a common sense, then all these details about the patient were given by the patient when he came. Who gave it? Ram Prashad. Now, look at MLC. Time, 8 o'clock and 45 minutes at night. And from the mobile phone, the call of PCR went on at 8 o'clock and 20 minutes. There was a warning in this neighborhood. And in that incident, three people caught a man and one of them took out a knife and hit him. And all three of them ran away. Now, at 8 o'clock and 20 minutes, this was seen in the police record. And within 25 minutes, the patient who reached the hospital and how he reached, took him to Ram Prashad. This is such a close proximity of time that it is a proof in itself that Ram Prashad was with the victim when he was alive and when someone attacked the victim. Ram Prashad, by the very nature of the facts, is a very strong and an unimpeachable character because he is not coming because he is saying Ram Prashad because he is coming from the medical legal document in MLC. And if this witness slips up in evidence, then this two pieces of evidence that this much FIR was leaked and this much MLC was recorded. And in this MLC, Ram Prashad brought the victim. It becomes very, very strong corroborative evidence of Ram Prashad. Now, the patient brought dead. And the body of the patient is seized by the police. Seizure Mimo is made and he is sent to the mortuary for post mortem. He records the statement of Ram Prashad. Ram Prashad states that he was going with Mritak's friend. Mritak was an enemy of the four people whose name Mritak told me that these are the four people. And when we reached there, then these four were completely lost. The victim screamed. The victim took this name and I saw him. And the victim was caught by these two and two took out a knife and stabbed him and ran away. Ram Prashad, I witness, but watch carefully whether Ram Prashad is doing any false implication because we have come to see that when Ram Prashad is guilty, then two people commit a crime. And the victim side gets a point that if the whole family or the whole group is destroyed, then they are called embellishments, exaggerations. Now, they think that if they are guilty and because Ram Prashad has also told the accused's name, then the police do not need to investigate much because it is not a blind crime, so they catch these four and catch them. Now, when it comes to post mortem, you have to watch carefully on the post mortem. And I am seeing these days that no lawyer gives attention to this. When it comes to post mortem columns, height of the dead, length of the dead body, weight of the dead body, digested food in the stomach, undigested food. Now, if the length of the dead body and when the length means that the dead body is flat on the table, then the doctor only writes the length, but otherwise it is the height of the person. Now, if the person's height of the person is 5'11", and the stab wounds are three, then the doctor writes in the stab wound that the entry wound was 2 cm, 3 cm, 4 cm, it was a spindle shape, spindle shape means knife like a dagger, which is wound on both sides, one side is blunt and the other side is sharp. If all of them are blunt on one side and sharp on the other, then this means that the weapon of a fence, whatever it is, but it cannot be a dagger, because the dagger is sharp edge on both sides, which has a spindle shape wound. Then depth of the wound, this also tells that if the depth of the four wounds is 4-4 cm, then this indicates that the weapon of a fence is one, but if there are two, then both were the one whose blade was 4 cm. So the lawyer, if the post-mortem report does not post-mortem, then how will he get the primary facts, that how will you heal the eye witness? Then the trajectory of the wound, that it is going towards the inwards, it is going towards the upper, it is going towards the left, it is going towards the right, is it stab wound or jab wound? What is stab wound and jab wound? If it is a knife, if it is shot like this, stab, and if it goes like this, then it would be a jab wound. And we get this from common sense, when we do it like this, like a book, then the angle of your hand will go down. So if you stab like this, or it goes straight, or it goes up, if you read Modi on medical school students, you will get all this knowledge there, but this is not knowledge, this is a common sense observation. The defense lawyer, his duty is, that the scene of the crime, as stated by the eye witness, he recreates it in his office, he sends his assistant over, you are standing here, do not pick up the phone, but put your foot rule on it, and if the excellent is 5-4 inch, and the victim is 5-4-1 inch, then the height of the victim is 6 inches. That is why you get a lot of facts, that how you can cross-examine the witness. Now let's go to the sideline. Now the victim says, that we were going, so in the corner of the street, there are 4 of them. If there is a street, 3-4 square street, and there are other people on it, then the common sense is, that is it possible, that two are holding, and two are free-listing, is there enough space, or not? What will come out of this? This will come out, that it is not possible, and because in a criminal law, prosecution has to prove the case, beyond reasonable doubt, and the court has repeatedly said, could be, there are 3 stages, could be, should be, would be, then till the 3rd stage, the evidence does not hold its strength, till then the accusation, its entitlement to benefit of doubt remains. So the good lawyer, to prove this, that I did not, till here, the statement of the witness is making a serious doubt. Now the witness got caught, so two, two of them, innocent, and he says, now such an eyewitness, he became partly unreliable, partly unreliable, and then he said, the judge's job is to separate the grain from the shaft, from the grain, from the choker, the grain that comes out, to separate it, it is very easy to say, but I am trying, it is very difficult to do this exercise, because the witness, has made his truth and lies in this way, has intertwined, that the strands of his truth, when you are separating them from the strands of lies, the strands of truth start breaking. And the fabric of the prosecution, which is tana and bana, the threads of tana have remained, the threads of pana have broken, that is, the weft and the waft. So when the cloth that is being washed in this way and washed from here, this weft that has fallen here, this weft cannot be made, this weft also falls down like this. So, till the time you, post-mortem report, from every aspect, from every aspect, will not digest, and will not connect with the chance, Now, as I said, this FIR, the first information report, which has been moved from the police station, it is 8 o'clock, it is also at this minute, it was dark. So, post-mortem, on the site plan, where did you see the light point? If the police did not show the light point, that there was light here, then there was a lot of problems, what was the problem? That the eyewitness could also see it. Suppose the tube light was 50 meters away from the street, that from 50 meters, those 4 assailants, who were in full time, 4 or 5 seconds, went to the crime, and I said to the witness in the beginning, that I did not know them, but I was told the accused's name. It is possible? What is possible? When a person sees a crime, then his mind wanders around himself, who did it? Now, when he saw that the victim was stabbed, and stabbed so badly, that one stab went straight into his heart, and the post-mortem doctor records, that death was instantaneous. This victim, cannot be conscious for even 10 seconds, because his heart, the chamber, or ventricle or oracle, pierced so badly, that within the 4th heart beat, his cardiac arrest took place. Because there was no blood in the heart. Now, why did his friend talk to him, that these 4 people are my relatives, and I am afraid of these 4 people, and if he saw an assailant, then it is possible that he named him, what was his name, because he was not able to name him. Here, there were only 2 of them, but he said, this was 4, so why should I leave even 2? Because people seek revenge, people seek revenge. So, after being vengeful, he made 4 places. So, there are 2 things that are possible. He saw 4 people, but he did not recognize them, or he saw 2 people, but because his friend said, there are 4 people, so either way, there is an embellishment. Either 4 unknown assailants, or 2 did it, those 2 others are repaid. How would the defense break into this? Don't forget that this witness, or a strong witness, is coming over you, because within 25 minutes, when there was a chance, this victim has been taken to the hospital. And the theory of continuity of time tells that if the time gap is so small, then the presumption is that it was with him. If you take the eyewitness from his clothes, the blood stain is written in his clothes. And that is the blood group of the victim. He was taken here. If you corroborate a 3-wheeler who was stopped by a 3-wheeler, he also says, he stopped me here, I helped him and I brought him here. And the police have also seized this 3-wheeler as a case property, because from his seat, the blood came out, which matches the blood group of the deceased, then such a strong prosecution case is becoming a web. Whereas in the criminal law, the strength of the prosecution's case becomes its greatest weakness. But when will that happen? When the lawyer will be conscious, and the medical, legal evidence will be able to see it carefully. Now let's move ahead. Now you have asked him how much time did you spend with the deceased, and where did you get it? He said, he called me home at 7 o'clock. He said, how much time did you stay at home? He said, he stayed until 7.30. He said, according to you, he called me at 8 o'clock for 20 minutes. So at 7 o'clock in the morning, he said, where were you for an hour and 5 minutes? He said, we went to a very good restaurant. Then we had a beer there, and we had mutton kebab and chicken tikka. Now, medical legal jurisprudence tells us that in the food stomach, after two hours of eating, through the stomach of your small intestines, through that part called diodenum. That diodenum is a curved pipe that connects to the small intestine of your semi-digested food diodenum within these two hours. And the post-mortem doctor said, stomach cavity empty. So the witness was discredited. He said, we sat there for an hour. We had a beer, we had a beer, it took half an hour and 40 minutes. If we went there, we got a chance. But if there is undigested food coming out of his stomach cavity, and the post-mortem doctor says that there was liquid, which was reeking of alcoholic smell, then this prosecution case is getting stronger. When I have to tell you about the Marico legal case, then if you are a prosecutor, then you have to pay attention to which things you have to pay attention to so that your witness can be fruitful. And if you are a defense lawyer, then you have to pay attention to which things you can create a reasonable doubt on that witness. And especially, if you get the chance to know that there were two assylents, then for your sake, that he has made four of these, now how can I prove that this crime cannot be done by four people. It had to be one or it had to be two. And when you have brought it up to this point, then it can only be two. The judge will be left with no option, but you say that I have to give benefit of doubt to all four. Because what our students have done is that if the people in Ninyan have done a crime and are caught 100 times, and we don't know who was in Ninyan and who was innocent, then we all have to acquit our 100 people in Ninyan. Law of evidence, not law of probability. The probability is that 100 people have done it in Ninyan. So if you sentence someone in Ninyan, then 18 people must have done it. Only one person can be caught wrong. But the law says no. As long as the possibility of one innocent being convicted remains, we all have to be acquitted. Next. When the I.O. went to the hospital and recorded a statement of Ram Prasad, and sent a request to get F.I.R.D.s, then the S.H.O. and the inspector who went to the hospital before going there, told Ram Prasad that there were two people, two people, took out the knife and stabbed him. Now we all know that when a body is sent to the police station for post-mortem, then it is filled with a form that has inquest proceedings, 174 C.R.D. Look at it carefully. If the doctor does not ask if these injuries are from sharp-ed weapons, and if these are from possible knives, something will turn on this. What will it turn? That the Ram Prasad was not found there at that time. Yes, it is correct that the name of Ram Prasad in the MLC is that he brought the victim. But Ram Prasad was scared from there that he would not be able to answer the police. Why is that? It is possible that the Ram Prasad, along with the victims of the accused, could have been Ram Prasad and his friend. And the accused who had come to kill Ram Prasad and killed the victim. Now he will not tell me that he was taken away from me and that he was Ram Prasad. So that is why he will come with an embellishment in his story. The role of a defence counsellor is that he should be able to sense out that this fact is not fit under ordinary circumstances. It is not gelling. But when will he be able to do it? He will not be able to do it until he gets rid of every fact. Let me deviate a little. This is very important. What is a fact? Evidence that says a fact is a thing, state of thing, relationship of thing which can be perceived by the senses and a mental condition of what a person is conscious of. So when Ram Prasad says that me and the deceased were in this lane at 8 o'clock, what is the fact in this? There are two facts. That relationship of thing, me and the deceased were in a relationship that we will do it here. Next, our relationship is from place, from time. So the one who we think that he said one fact, he did not say one fact, he said three facts. Then he says that this will be charged. Next fact, the relationship of four persons with the time and the place which is that place from which the deceased and he are in a relationship. So in this way, when I told you that when there is evidence in the criminal trial, then he starts creating a web. The work of the prosecutor is to establish his case. And if some facts come that do not get jealous with each other, then the prosecutor should think what to think. The law says that witnesses do not speak like tape recorders. They speak from memory. They speak from their language skill. They give blood slurred statements. So the work of the prosecutor is to see that there are two such facts that become mutually contradictory. They cannot be cut off. If such a fact is coming to the witness's face, then he should understand that I should be now in a position to cross examine my witness. To confront him with certain statements and to cross examine. And similarly, he will be from two medical legal documents, MLC and the post mortem report. Next comes the forensic evidence. The doctor will ask, sir, can this knife rule? You should be conscious of the fact that the handle of the knife is so big. The tip of the knife is that it is pointed, it is blunt. These are all things. We have seen that in cross examination, he says that this type is an injury. The lawyer should say, sir, I should also look at the knife. His knife was so sharp that he can cut it so fine. If it is not so fine, then it is a duty to ask the post mortem doctor that how fine the edge of the knife should be which can wound such a surgical clear cut. He will say that the blade of the knife which has the sharp edge should be very, very sharp. He will say, confront him with this knife. This sharpness can happen. And where it is said, probably yes, probably no. The moment he says, probably no, it will stop. Because now we have an enough admission that this knife, a planted knife, is very big. And don't forget, prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. And the standard of defense is the civil one, preponderance of probability. So if the defense, in that evidence, is bringing the prosecution to a high level, but it creates doubt on a preponderance of probability, that would be sufficient. Now as we have said, the side plan is important. Now it has happened at night and the police did not show any light there. Very serious omission. You can see the serious doubt. Next, even if there is light, placement of the light. Was this light behind you or ahead of you, behind the victim, behind the assailant? If I am in the dark and the light is behind me, then my face will not glow that much. The features of my face will not be so distinct. It will be very difficult for the eyewitness who saw the assailant for the first time. Now what is your skill? Look at the side plan. This light was behind us. This means that the light behind us was on the back side, not on the front side. So it cannot see the features of our face so much. So you will look at that line of the eyewitness. How can you say that he caught, he stabbed, because four people suddenly pounced and ran away in three seconds. And you were looking at them, but what they say in English law, you could only see the silhouette of the person. Why? Because the light was behind him, it was not in his face. Now if the fire arm is used. So from a ballistic expert, this evidence should be given that how many velocities come out of this pistol or from this revolver? This is spinning, we always know the bullets. It does not spin through the barrel of many, it spins through the revolver because it has a curve in it and it does not spin through the pistol. And when the bullet comes out of the nozzle, it comes out while rubbing. Behind it is a burst that pushes it. The bullet is heated. Very important to cross-examine the ballistic expert. How long does this bullet last? You can see the post-mortem report on the MLC. Is there a scarring, burn, tattooing injury at the entry point? If there is no burning, scaling injury at the entry point, it will show that this bullet did not fire from a four foot or five foot distance because when it entered the body, the bullet had cooled down. When it entered the body, it did not burn the skin. And I witness that this is from a point blank range. Criminology says that if the ocular means what you are seeing and strong contradiction is coming out of the medical evidence, then you do not believe in that eyewitness. Why not? Because people have realized that a man can convince himself in his false beliefs that what I am saying is true. I have only 15 minutes to take some questions on this. There was a very good research in America. There they showed 40 people a film of 10 minutes in which it was shown that a man leaves his house and goes to the market. It is time of the morning and the market is opening at 8 o'clock. Someone is opening his shop, someone is taking a shutter. In front of him, he goes to a burger shop. He takes a burger. When he crosses the market, he comes to the crossing. There was a time in the morning, there was not much traffic, there were not many people, so one car comes and that other car tickles both of them. When it tickles, people come and stand near the car. The picture stops there and nothing is shown. 20 people went to one room and 20 people went to the other room. Question number 2 to 20 was the same. Question number 1 was the difference. The difference was that one group asked the question, did you see two cars crash? And the other group asked, did you see two cars collide? Everyone saw it and said yes. Question number 2 was the same. Did you see broken glass? The first group asked the question, did you see two cars crash? In their mind, the car crashed. It was so hard. According to Dr. Kali, when two cars crash, it will break. Everyone wrote that the windscreen broke. The other group was there. They did not see the windscreen. One group said, yes, I saw the windscreen. The other group said, we did not see it. The next question was, did you see blood? The group of 20 people said, two cars crashed, glass broke. It could be blood. They said, yes, we saw blood. And everyone here did not see it. What did they find from this survey? That the first question, which in India, we will not ask the leading question. America said that this is the leading question. What was the leading question? You asked an adjective while asking a question. Did you add an adjective? Crash. And what is an adjective? An adjective that gives a work or name a color. You gave an adjective to the car and made a crash. And after making a crash, what happened? This is the testimony of the 20 people. From two questions to 20 questions, aggravating testimony was made. And the 20 people there, their testimony came. There was a crash in the cars. So it may not be a case of rash and negligent driving. So now I would like to ask you a question. I could not go into detail at this short time. But I hope that I can put broad contours in your mind. And you are able to somewhat pick it up instinctively. In a nutshell, I told you one thing. In every statement, pick up a different strain of fact. Like a thick rope, it is not necessary to break it. A thin rope can be strong. Why? Because the way you have intertwined the fibers, the strength of the rope comes by the better intertwining of the fibers and not by the number of fibers. Similarly, in appreciation of evidence and more so, in the criminal trial, how can you intertwine the four or five facts? And how can you intertwine them? So the scale of the prosecutor is how to intertwine them. And the scale of the defense is how to show the inter-twining of the prosecutor. The inter-twining of the prosecutor is not actually there. Thank you very much. Thank you. I can say that when we were discussing about the medical jurisprudence, it was more like a surgical strike when we got everything in the right form. Thank you. And we can only sum up in the way saying that it was concise, precise and concise. Insights what you told about the medical jurisprudence. But with the incision what you have taken up in the journey of 45 minutes, I think that it will actually help someone, some spark in the some legal minds and legal brains. Meanwhile, we take a question from Harry. It says, what is the relevance of the MLC if recorded by the government doctor brought by a relative to emergency, but no information was supplied to the police by the doctor. Doctor later says that he did not inform the police because the relative of the injured person gave in writing that they will inform the police later on. Since the session is in Hindi, let me ask you this question. What is the relevance of the MLC Harry? If the doctor is a government doctor, he has a body. Right. The relevance is that if you look at the number of the MLC, if its number is 471, that it is 471 and then 272. It is 478.10 and it is 479. So this is an evidence that this MLC is between 8.10 and 9. If it is written that it is from 8.20, why should the doctor, if the doctor has no motive, it is from 8.20. Now on that MLC, why did the doctor make it? Why did he make it? Will he bring the name of the imaginer? If he writes that the injured person brought his relatives and then the address of the relatives is written, the name is written. How does he know that a person in this name lives in this house? So the intrinsic evidence in this MLC is that it was on 8.25 and it was brought by so and so. It was a very strong evidence. Now he says that he will tell the police not to do it. Now this evidence taints the statements of these people because when we say, when the Supreme Court judgment says that different people react in a different way, what would be the strongest desire in me to seek justice, to seek retribution by illegal beings? Why should I shy away? Why should I say that you should not inform the police? I will do it. This means that till this time, the people who had brought them, they thought on the way, how should we spin this story? It is possible that the victim has provoked and they are conscious of the fact so they need some time to spin a story. But yes, a date has come in the witness statement by conduct. Now how will you exploit it? It's a matter of this thing but the statements would be completely admissible and will be admissible in evidence. They will be treated as primary evidence but the primary evidence would have a taint in it. But whether the taint is exploited to the level of discrediting the other part of the witness would depend on further facts. This is the task. How to prove forgery of the medical evidence as hospital staff is involved in the cutting apron of the case. I couldn't get it. Your voice was cutting. How to prove forgery of a medical evidence in case the hospital staff is also included. Now forgery, you have made a good expert evidence on one person. Or you have changed his time. Or you have added another person in him. So this is too theoretical a question. Now let us put it like this. When a doctor or an MLC is writing his report, it is common sense that you know something before writing that I need 150 words from 100 words. So he sees the gap of the first line and second line, the gap of the second and third, the gap of the third and fourth, the gap of the fifth and sixth. Then he sees that there is no space in the page. And then he says that there is some squeeze in it. Now common sense tells me that if I have one sheet in which I have to write something, I have come to the last but one line and now I know that I have to write 25 more words. So I will not leave the same spacing between the penultimate and the preceding line. I will reduce it a little so that I can write one line properly. But the first, second, third, fourth and fifth lines have the same spacing. This writer will always see that now I am writing the fourth line, so I will reduce the gap of the fourth and fifth. Because now I have to put one more line. This is a matter of common sense, but this is also a matter of them to read. See, this line becomes a complete sentence to the fifth line. It's complete by itself. And these 15 words in one line are getting an additional sentence. So you have to become a linguistic expert then. And then you are able to bring it. Bring it carefully. What commentaries would you recommend for medical legal cases? See, the standard in India is Modi only. So I think if you digest Modi properly, then in 90% cases you have enough Modi for medical legal cases. But if you have an arsenic poisoning, then arsenic poisoning is so minute. It is very difficult to detect in Vasera. So you will get it in Modi's jurisprudence. But today you have so much access to information on the net. You put it on the net, slow poisoning by arsenic, micro milligrams of arsenic, a speck of arsenic. So I say that if this is a world of net, it gives you so much information that you don't need to take a book to see jurisprudence. You have to create your own space. And keep searching the net, you will get a lot. But Modi is a good jurisprudence. So when you were talking about the net, they say that internet also or what they say in the artificial intelligence. It has its own interface. It gives you the same hyperlinking what you start looking forward. So let's assume we talk about medical jurisprudence. It will keep on taking to you. That's right. It relates more to you. So since we have taken the entire session in Hindi, three, four questions have come. So I will request by the end of the webinar. Let's take few sessions, a few questions in English, which are very basic since in this session not only we spoke of medical jurisprudence. But we have also understood some nuances of the art of cross examination, which if people would have taken a deep dive into your sessions, then it is quite sure that people will understand, like what you told how the light has to be resisted, how the stabbing has to be seen, how that we can take it in respect of gunshot also, what is an incisive mode, what is a deep mode. While taking that, I will just ask for a common person and since young students also watch, what would be the distinction between a primary and a secondary evidence? Because once you had talked about the primary evidence. See, primary evidence is always percipient evidence. The person who gages from his senses, like I am in the village and I say I was going there, it was dark, so someone gave me a voice, I will win today's work. Because we used to live in the village, so I could make out from the sound of the sound of Kishore. Why? This is primary evidence. Why? Because I heard from the ear. And I said that I live in the village, Kishore also lives in the village. Don't we recognize our friends from their voices? We recognize our friends, when a friend comes to our office, we get to know from his walk. Every person's walk is a threat. We get to know that our friend has come. So primary evidence is an evidence which is percipient evidence. Secondary evidence is an evidence which is not a percipient evidence, where from two facts you would infer another fact that would be a case of secondary evidence. That is why we say secondary evidence is a weaker evidence than primary. Why? Because there are two taint in secondary evidence. The one who speaks can be a liar. And the other one who draws an inference from the judge can be a taint in it. But the primary evidence is the judge's work, whether to believe or not to believe the witness. If he believes the witness, then he should not draw an inference. So that is the difference between a primary and a secondary evidence. Secondary evidence is inferential. So post-modern report is not a primary evidence. It would be an expert evidence. Though it would have a feature of a primary, ki ek stab boon tha, dos tab boon tha, gun shot boon tha, wo tha dead body speaks, wo tha primary ho gaya. Par abhi, is chhoori se hoa ya nahi hoa? That is not a primary evidence. That would be an inferential evidence and would be form, collated from the other facts stated by somebody as primary and an inference to be drawn. I am seeing on the YouTube as well as there that a lot of people are separately chatting it to me. But you should request sir to take a lot of sessions. That you will take... In the primary evidence, what you said, the famous song, wording that I have reminded. Sir, aasi aahat hoti hai aur dil kata hai ki kahin rahi toh nahi. Absolutely. Sir, like you have talked about, we have taken few questions so that people who are taking the judiciary exams are the students. What do you mean by expert evidence as such? D.K., expert evidence comes under section 45 of the Evidence Act. And there are what we call its origin is in the Fry's test, F.R.Y. Fry's test. The basis is that if a matter of knowledge is accepted as a special knowledge by peers in the subject, yani ki jo ush vishay ke gyaani log hain, wo ushko ek gyaan ka vishay maanthe hain aur ush gyaan ke baare mein, ek general consensus theory hai. So number one, it should be an evidence on a matter of expert knowledge. That expert knowledge must contain the contours of the knowledge. And third, jo ush knowledge ko apply kar raha hain ush ko apni report mein yeh dikhana hain ki yaan wo by qualification, yaan wo by experience expert hain aur ush ne apna expertise ush report mein apply kya. Yani ki jo principles of that expert knowledge hain wo liktah hain ki yeh main hain apply kyain, kyaise kyain wo liktah hain. And if there is a known rate of error, to ush known rate of error ko bhi kya ush ne consider kya. Judgment yeh khaithi hai ki in spite of the evidence being an expert evidence, phir bhi judge ka kaam hain apna judicial function delegate nahin kar sata judge. Yeh bada achambas hi cheez hain. Ki hai toh yeh matter of expert knowledge. But phir bhi judge delegate nahin kar sata. The judge cannot make the expert the judge. Toh judge toh phir bhi judge ko karna hain. Toh main ushka yeh chota saa example dethaun. You started off by giving the example of dishes, chefs. We may not be chefs, but jag hain achcha swadisht bhyanjan khaate hain toh kya aam ko pata nahin chota? Haan apne boome dalne se pehle jab gharain hain apne boon ki teraf lara hain jo ushka aroma hata hain, jo hamarin nasal, jisko olifactory senses ko activate karta hain. Pata nahin chota ki boome paani hain. Abhi boome khaana liye hain nahin hain. Aap jata hain, 5-star me aapko itna achcha garnish khaana milta hain. Abhi wo aapko uski khushbo bhi nahin hain hoti. Par boon jo door se hi aap tashari reht se hain. Aapka appetizing usi se shuru hain. So meaning thereby that the expert cook has made it, but we are the final judge ki esko mai kya rating boon hain. But rating ke liye bhi some norms hain, jat bhi dekhega ki saad ye expert knowledge hain, ye expert knowledge isko is tari ke se pata hain hain. Ab aap dekhenge, ek wo tha dilli mein, second murder case, that's the only case jaha typewriter evidence ke baare mein aaya, to uske andar saara evidence hi aaya ki pehle Indian courts ne kaha tha ki typewriter ka jo evidence hain, expert knowledge mein nahin aaya. 9-to-4 Supreme Court ne kaha hain, to we will take it as evidence of an expert. To expert know us mein kaha ke saad ye uska serif hain, wo letter ka niche hain, to wo uski jo placement se mujah pata chalta hain, ki aise typewriter se hain. But then when the defense brought the evidence ki jab typewriter banthe hain, jo uski keys banthe hain, to die ke andar, e ke nahi banthe, to ke nahi banthe, lakh ho keys banthe hain. Lakh ho keys, jab typewriter assemble hota hain kaha aay typewriter factory mein, to wo ek keek kitara lagla keek baek nahi hota, ek assembly line mein hain, hazanon ki tajab pe typewriter banthe hain. So this defect can come in thousands. Now because this defect comes in thousands, to therefore, the theory was that to what level of corroborated probability it should lie, like for example, agar main do fingerprint, fingerprint ka ye law hain, agar ek fingerprint mein se paanch ridges milti hain, tab us fingerprint ko ek achha sample maana jaata hain. Agar aap ko ek ridge milti hain, ya do milti hain, to teen milti hain, wo achha sample nahi maana jaata hain. Iski theory kya hain? Theory ye hain, that scientists have found ki hain hain our finger mein, 21 ridges maximum hosate hain, placement mein. Aur kisi insaan ke 21 hi hote, saath 8 ridges hote hain. Par usme se agar paanch ridge, tali karte hain, what is the law of probability that 21 ridges laced in different formations and 5 being in the same, the probability is 1 in 5 billion. To jab ye 5 ridges ko safe maana gaya tha, us time pe ye theory milti, jab world population, 3 billion thi. But today, on the theory of probability, agar 5 ridge sample pakdha jaye, to law probability ye batati hain, when the world population is now 7 billion, that possibility of one more person having the same ridges cannot be enough. Once you said about the aroma in the 5 star, I just reminded that the proof of the pudding lies in the eating. So you mean to say that as a lawyer, you will have to work hard built on your skills. Absolutely. So the day when we were connected for the purposes of webinar, few talks we had taken about and in the last of the webinars, we take on this thing. I will just ask one question, how can one build the art of thinking on the feet as a lawyer? Look, I have always maintained that the lawyer should be a good listener. The lawyer should be a good listener. The lawyer should be a good listener. Number two, the lawyer should be a good listener. Number two, the lawyer should have the facts of his case at the back of his palm. You can make a strategy but a judge, I ask you any question. Listen to the question carefully. After all, you can't tell a judge you are a fool, you can't say that. So he may be a fool but you can't say that. Listen carefully what he is saying. Then you will realize that in this case, there is a fact that does not exist. Here, the judge is saying that he is asking you but if I add a fourth fact in this, then this question becomes irrelevant. So when you say thinking on the feet, this is what we call thinking on the feet. But how can you think on the feet till you don't have the backup material to germinate the thought that you are dead. One fact, as a witness said, I saw a deep red color coming out of the car. As a lawyer, you should be able to understand the car was a Percipient fact. The red was also a Percipient fact. But the deep is a matter of opinion. Because somebody this color consciousness may be poor. I am calling them a deep red. So when we say quick on the feet, how would you be quick on the feet as a witness said I saw a deep red color car immediately should come to you. The car and red see this deep part is now putting your opinion in the eyes. But how would you do it until and unless you have drained your mind and before that you have trained to listen to it very very carefully. So be a good listener to adjust what has been put to you and then see where is the error in the question. Why is this question being put to me by the court you will find the answer very clearly that something or the other either a fact is being ignored by a judge or the question is based upon an assumption of a fact you should be able to say Sir there are two facts in this this is the third assumption and until these three don't come this question cannot be raised. That is what I say that you should be. The judge our senior 50% success 50% 50% 50% The art of winning is the art of patting a judge you have pro conviction judges you have pro prosecution judges you have all kinds of judges but there are skillful lawyers who from very very convicting judges manage to get equivalents and they understand their judge. We will take some questions that how this art of navigating in the court premises should be built up. Look keep a keen observability when you see that a good lawyer is discussing in the court then listen don't stand in the corridor don't sit in the canteen sit in the courtroom see how this lawyer presents facts how he analyzes lot of knowledge comes by the process of induction it comes by the process of induction I am sure every time has selected seniors some are good at cross examination when they know that the process is empty then go to the court see how he is doing he is arguing he is small he says he is fighting build your knowledge quibbling squabbling quirreling so Mr. Chhatra quibbling is your daily routine squabbling is once in 4 days fighting quarreling never what happens the lawyer is not quick on his feet when he is sitting he is fighting he is fighting we make him fighting so you go to the market we learn once I was in Masoori I went there in the morning my neck got damaged so I went to the hardware shop he saw me I was a judge in the jail I said there are a lot of people coming I have to take a small amount you vacate the customers when I went there he said give me a stick he held it in his hand he said give me a stick I asked him what is the difference between a stick and a stick he said give me a stick he said so what you think it is dot iron it is colored it is called Nalka the chrome one it is called tap it is called mixture I said so roam around the world so what do you find if for a good criminal lawyer he should be well versed with the language which the common man speaks it is called Nalka tap mixture same thing quibbling, squabbling, quarreling fighting that is it how to fight your space within this entire lawyer's space to create your own space within the market as I said people may say that the number of lawyers have increased exponentially let us not forget that litigation has also increased exponentially now when you say you have to create a space for yourself how do you create a space for yourself one thing I believe no one has any work but still you are a lawyer with considerable standing do you have a junior like you used to see a lot of hard working you used to see and you must have seen those who had extra work somewhere for yourself whether you are giving or not whether you are not giving 100% they will create a space for themselves and as you see on the radio when they bring vegetables they don't keep it they display it the best tomato you must have seen they are putting it on the outside Gobi's flower which is the best for them they put it on the outside why? he attracts the customer once when the customer comes whether he buys the flower of Gobi or the other so you also have to display he displays by working hard on it he takes one of the tomatoes out of the basket then he sees the red one he puts it on the outside then the other one puts it inside he puts the vegetables in the same way one keeps his story like this one keeps the story in sequence it looks beautiful in the radio display you get attracted towards that so that is all I have reminded what you told there is a very famous youtube session Raghuraman he is from the defense forces then he went over to the reliance he is also a motivational speaker he has done one session on lessons from the management lessons from the street there he says that how you place a book in the market and how you create your space he says this is very good if there is a very good book store first it goes to the bookstore then it goes to the library then it goes to street vendors and if the book is displaying the second hand books or his copy books it means you can well understand that you have taken the message right absolutely correct in Delhi University there was an economist who was a member of planning commission he was a very highly respected professor who was the student of our prime minister Dr. Malmun Singh he said in one of his lectures that if you want to learn marketing then you don't need to go to any MBA school you are from Delhi take the bus from Chandigarh to the state roadway then this G.T. Karnaval was 30 feet away and he said when the bus stops in your sleep, water path, canal in Ambala then the children there will teach you how to stand in the house when the bus was standing there was a field a tree was there then the children first a girl who had the best skills she would come and say 1 rupee for 2 6 or 8 people would buy but she would go back and the children would say 4 people are sitting in this bus then the other child would come he would take less quality 3 people would bring 1 rupee for 3 2 people would say 1 child would come and if no one said 4 then the next child would not come in Delhi or in Chandigarh in your street lights your children are selling these things it is amazing today the child is selling Duster the next day he is selling something else the car only stops for 30 seconds he sells in 30 seconds and the customer asks does he do the survey in the evening he tells that today 10 people asked me for a napkin so the customer is selling but he is also doing the survey why because the child is learning and doing by instinct very bright child so what we bring knowledge to the schools now there are two colleges you can take the Moga Laws of Leading see the Plains of 1908 in the Mufassal area at that time a lot of people used to become lawyers see the only practice in Mufassal areas how good are the Pleadings how good are the Plains see and enjoy so you you came there where I said how much can be done with hard work in the same way walking on the road with so much courage and this entire jurisprudence by Plato and Aristotle is all based on the theory of observability physics and law have a strong connection what does physics do one sees a phenomenon sees a cause and if the phenomenon links with a theory then it becomes a discovery what is in law there is a theory 302 this is the act and on that theory where do you get the inference so law bears a very strong connectivity with the theory of observability there you see a phenomenon and you see an effect and if you say that this cause and this effect can be linked to the theory can you say that the cause of this effect is this because of this theory same thing we do in law primary fact and then they say this is a theft misappropriation there is no interest so deprivation of property but with what fineness can you observe the facts you said that absorption and observation is very important and when we talk about science we remember Newton's law to every action there is equal and opposite reaction so you say that once you start building the art of thinking on the field you grow once you start the art of funnel thinking of structuring of the facts you grow as a lawyer even in the art of cleaning this art of structuring on the funnel process which tomatoes are the most advanced and which ones are the best you taught us very well so we are all indebted to you we have quite often said in lot of webinars where we take the interactive session becomes quite interactive leave it now this evening will be over but the night will continue so we will keep requesting you we will keep bothering you because I am watching the session on YouTube it is very useful we will share its numbers with you but as I said numbers don't count it is like when we connected on the previous date of hearing that's right our entire endeavor beyond the law is that even if one person is in the art they gain it as they say if you teach a father you will teach himself and his family but if you teach a mother they will teach the entire family so once we have a former Chief Justice with us we can only say that we don't only have one free but it is a nursery which ultimately during the seasons of Wanma we will keep on sharing the knowledge and on the parting note the knowledge what you have imparted is more like a bamboo tree you can see it for 5 years because we have youngsters after 5 years when they come we will keep on reading it and we will be thankful because legal empowerment legal knowledge and legal insights come and I can say this with Tawee after today's session the most important part of this subject and precisely you have heard a lot of things and people will keep on moving forward now they say this is just the beginning the results are still there thank you sir