|
Author
|
Message
|
rahultandon
Credits:
1342
My Scrapbook
|
doubts
|
04.24.05 (3 years ago)
#1
|
|
|
all are cognisable offence except?a)robbery b)murder c)rape d)attempted suicide
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
professoranil
Credits:
165
My Scrapbook
|
|
Cognizable or non-cognizable offences
|
04.26.05 (3 years ago)
#2
|
|
all are cognisable offence except?a)robbery b)murder c)rape d)attempted suicide
Unfortunately this is a WRONG question because all four offences are cognizable (please note that the correct spellings of this word; with a "z". Although both "s" and "z" are permissible in ordinary day-to-day usage, the Criminal Procedure Code always mentions this word with a "z")
Had this question been like below:
all are non-bailable offences except? a)robbery b)murder c)rape d)attempted suicide
Then of course the correct answer would have been (d).
A little explanation might be in order here.
Cognizable offence is defined in section 2 (c) of Criminal Procedure Code as an offence in which a police officer may arrest a person without warrant. This provision is reserved for more serious offences, where the police must arrest the offender immediately, lest there is a risk of offender escaping. Section 2 (l) of Criminal Procedure Code defines the "non-cognizable offence", and this is defined as an offence in which a police officer has no authority to arrest without warrant. This applies to less serious offences.
The Criminal Procedure Code gives two schedules at the end (which are much like appendices at the end of a book). Of these the first schedule gives a classification of all offences. All offences are classified under three headings (i) whether they are cognizable or not (ii) whether bailable or not and (iii) which court can try them (e.g. sesssions court, first class magistrate or any magistrate etc).
Major examples of non-cognizable offences are (i) Bribery (S. 171 E, IPC) (ii) Causing miscarriage with woman's consent (S. 312 IPC) [causing miscarriage without woman's consent comes under s. 313 IPC; this is cognizable] (iii) Voluntarily causing hurt (S. 323 IPC) and (iv) Intercourse by a man with his wife not being under twelve years of age.
Murder, theft, robbery and dacoity are some examples which fall under cognizable offence, i.e. the police office can arrest a person accused of these offences without warrant from a magistrate. One of the biggest misunderstandings among students is that attempt to commit suicide is a non-cognizable offence. It is not. Attempt to commit suicide is a cognizable offence.
However it (attempt to commit suicide) is a bailable offence, while murder, robbery and rape are non-bailable offences.
There is a subtle difference between bailable and non-bailable offences too, but until there is a specific demand from the group to explain, I will restrict myself.
Professor Anil Aggrawal
Professor of Forensic
Medicine
Maulana Azad Medical College
New Delhi-110002
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
rahultandon
Credits:
1342
My Scrapbook
|
|
THANKS TO DR ANIL AGGARWAL
|
04.27.05 (3 years ago)
#3
|
|
|
IAM PLEASANTLY SURPRISED TO SEE THAT DR ANIL PERSONALLY ANSWERED THIS QUESTION. IHAD EXPECTED OTHER USERS TO ANSWER IT. MAY HE ACHIEVE GREAT HEIGHTS IN HIS PROFESSION AND GOD BLESS HIM.HE HAS MADE A LIFELONG FAN IN ME. THANKS ONCE AGAIN..., DR Rahul tandon
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
professoranil
Credits:
165
My Scrapbook
|
|
|
04.27.05 (3 years ago)
#4
|
|
Thanks Rahul. I need all the good wishes I can get.
May God bless you!
Regards
Anil Aggrawal
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
cautery
Credits:
3008
My Scrapbook
|
|
|
06.30.06 (2 years ago)
#5
|
|
A few more question in gunshot from reddy--
rat hloe apperance of entrance wond is seen in what range of shotgun injury
1) Contact
2)close
3) near
4)long
Reddy text (19 ed) mentions rat hole in the 'near shot' para, but the diagram on the previous page shows it as within one metre i.e. close shot.
someone please clarify....
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
anil1956
Credits:
307
My Scrapbook
|
|
|
06.30.06 (2 years ago)
#6
|
|
Hi all,
Rat hole is the name given to a shotgun wound which is circular but appears "bitten" at the periphery. In other words, it appears as if a "rat has nibbled a hole" somewhere, say in a carpet!
Typically this occurs when the pellets start separating (we all know that they typically travel in a bunch in the beginning). The begin to separate at about 2 meters in an unchoked shot gun.
The terms "contact", "close", "near" and "long" are vague terms and shoult be avoided. One of the main reasons why they should be avoided is that there is no real agreement among various Forensic
pathologists as to which should be taken as close, which near and which long. To make matters worse, some Forensic
pathologists like to divide "contact" wounds into "contact" and "pressed contact"! They perhaps mean that in pressed contact we get muzzle impression on the skin, while in a "mere" contact we do not.
Many Forensic
pathologists like to believe that wounds where flame effects are seen are near; where soot effects are seen are intermediate and where tattooing effects are seen are distant.
On the whole, after 35 years of being in Forensic
Medicine, this issue has left me more confused than any other issue. The genesis of this problem of course is our insistence on vague terms. If I ever wrote a book on Forensic
, I would avoid these terms and use actual ranges instead.
This is hardly a solace for the worried student, who needs an answer to this question. To the "unfortunate student" facing the ignorance of their "not so smart" examiners, I would suggest tick "near" and pray God!
Anil Aggrawal
Professor, Forensic
Medicine
Maulana Azad Medical College,
New Delhi-110048
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
cautery
Credits:
3008
My Scrapbook
|
|
|
06.30.06 (2 years ago)
#7
|
|
Professor Anil Aggrawal
Sir,
Thank you very much for your reply.
I have always been a great fan of yours, ever since I laid my hand on your articles in Science Reporter, during my school days.
Its our fortune to have a guiding light, such as you, on this forum.
Thank you very much Sir.
Yours Sincierly
Cautery
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
anil1956
Credits:
307
My Scrapbook
|
|
|
06.30.06 (2 years ago)
#8
|
|
| cautery wrote: |
Professor Anil Aggrawal
Sir,
Thank you very much for your reply.
I have always been a great fan of yours, ever since I laid my hand on your articles in Science Reporter, during my school days.
Its our fortune to have a guiding light, such as you, on this forum.
Thank you very much Sir.
Yours Sincierly
Cautery |
Hi Catery,
Thanks for your kind comments.
You reminded of my younger days, when I had energy to write for popular magazines like Science Reporter!
After my last post, I remembered I did write a book on MCQs (with explanations) on popular demand from my students. The book is available at PeePee publishers site at
Regards
Anil Aggrawal
Professor
Forensic
Medicine
MAMC
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
ladybird
Credits:
1003
My Scrapbook
|
|
|
06.30.06 (2 years ago)
#9
|
|
i have a question or say a doubt
i wanted to know to which category indian skull belongs .. i searched one says we have caucasian features with a minor negroid features
but another says that we belong to aryan that is dolico cephalic
so is answer dolico or mesacephalic????????????
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
anil1956
Credits:
307
My Scrapbook
|
|
|
07.01.06 (2 years ago)
#10
|
|
| ladybird wrote: |
i have a question or say a doubt
i wanted to know to which category indian skull belongs .. i searched one says we have caucasian features with a minor negroid features
but another says that we belong to aryan that is dolico cephalic
so is answer dolico or mesacephalic???????????? |
Thanks Ladybird,
Here is the answer (with question) from my latest book:
13) The Cephalic index of Indians is between
(a)70-75 (b)75-80 (c)80-85 (d)85-90
Answer (b) This is basically an absurd question, and should never have found a place in any MCQ book. The only justification of its inclusion here is that it has been asked so many times in examinations. The question is given here with what is generally expected to be the correct answer. However many authors think that “the population of the Indian subcontinent are allied with the European population in terms of anthropological kinship”. If that is taken to be true, the correct answer should be (a).
Quite understandably, this is a controversial question. There are two basic problems in this question.
1. First and foremost is - whom does one consider a typical Indian? Is a Kashmiri with more Caucasoid features an Indian, or a Dravidian (Tamil) with more Negroid features an Indian, or a Manipuri with Mongoloid features an Indian? It is common knowledge that all three are Indians. If that be the case, then what is the point in asking the cephalic index of an Indian?
2. Secondly and still a very important point is that race is a very ill-defined concept. Not many physical anthropologists believe in this concept any more. Some feel that it is more a culturally defined concept than a biologically defined one. Or perhaps even a geographically defined concept.
We might perhaps have to go into historical Background of race too for a better understanding.
Because differences in SKIN color were apparent when different human groups came into contact, SKIN color became one of the most common traits of racial classification. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (1752-1840), a German physiologist, anthropologist and comparative anatomist, classified humans into four races. He used SKIN color (white, yellow, brown, and black) as well as other traits, but emphasized that humans do not fall neatly into these categories.
Europeans believed that Caucasoids were the superior race, and from the very beginning they were out to find a biological trait to prove this. They found this in cephalic index, and immediately announced that cephalic index can indeed differentiate the so called "superior" race like Caucasoids from an "inferior" race such as Negroids. Believing that head shape was a stable "racial trait", a Swedish scientist Anders Retzius developed the cephalic index in 1842 to describe the shape of the head.
According to him, a head with a width that measures less than 75% of its length is termed dolichocephalic; one with a width that measures between 75 to 79.9% of its length is termed mesocephalic; and one with a width that is more than 80% of its length is termed brachycephalic.
Quite interestingly, Europeans dropped the concept of cephalic index like a hot potato, when they discovered that allegedly superior dolichocephalic northern Europeans shared a similar head shape with some so-called "inferior" African populations.
Currently race is not an easily defined term - to the extent that many scientists do not believe in this term at all. Certainly it is not a biological construct. One great reason to think so is that the genetic variations within groups (say within several members of Caucasoids themselves) is vastly greater than the genetic variation between groups (i.e. between Negroids and Caucasoids).
It is now amply clear that traditional racial traits have a continuous range of phenotypic variation and it is impossible to construct discrete phenotypic or genotypic boundaries around populations (such as cephalic index).
Regards
Anil Aggrawal
Professor
Forensic
Medicine
MAMC,
New Delhi
|
|
|
Post Options:
Reply
Add
Forward
Report
New
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Topic Tags: 
