CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12] — Page 296

பட

290

-6-

difficulty probably occurs rarely in England.

Usually the

most important medical evidence in a murder case is the evi-

dence of the officer in charge of the mortuary. A record,

in the hand writing of the medical officer in charge, 18

kept at the mortuary, and of course is always referred to

by the medical officer when he is called as a witness. The

longer the lapse of time, the more does his evidence in fact

depend on the written record and the less on his rec:llection.

It does not therefore seem to be a very violent step to make

the record itself evidence when the officer cannot be called.

13.

Section 10 deals with a point upon which there has been

some doubt here, i.e., the proper method of proof of an ob-

servation made by the prisoner during the course of the pre-

liminary proceedings before the magistrate. Section 73(3)

of the Magistrates Ordinance, 1890, makes the formal state-

ment of the prisoner admissible on mere production, but the

Ordinance is silent as to the proof of any observation or

statement made by the prisoner at any other stage of the

also proceedings, and indeed as to the mode of proof of any evi-

dence given by him at the Kagistracy.

14.

M

It

The legal position in England is not quite clear. is quite certain that such an observation may be proved at the trial, and this has been done in a number of reported

cages.

The cases are not consistent on the method of proof. For example, in R. v. Weller (1846) 2 C. and K. 223, Platt, B., refused to receive evidence of an observation by the prisoner on the ground that it should have appeared

This is in conflict with R. v. 3pils- on the depositions.

burt