Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Station No: 1 PU Reg No:

INJURY CERTIFICATE
Accident Register No: Place: Date: Time:

Name: Sex: Age:

Address:

Brought and Identified by: Name: (if police) Batch No: of Police Station

Marks of identification: 1.

2.

Brief history:

Clinical findings: a) General examination:

b) Systemic examination:

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

 Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

c) Local Examination: Details of injuries/ clinical features.

Details about the injuries

SI. Type Size Location / Colour Age of Causative agent Simple/ Other remarks
No. injury grievous
Shape Direction

Radiological report (If any)

OPINION:
Signature of Doctor
Name
Place: Reg. No.
Designation
Date: Address

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

 Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Station No: 2
AGE CERTIFICATE

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

 Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Station No: 3
AGE ESTIMATION FROM HIP BONE
Age of
S.No. Ossification Centre Age of Fusion Observation Inference
Appearance

1. Ischio-pubic Ramus - 6 -8 years

2. Tri-radiate Cartilage - 13 – 15 years

3. Iliac Crest 14 - 16 years 18 – 20 years

4. Ischial Tuberosity 16 – 18 years 20 – 21 years

Opinion: The observation suggest that the age of the given Hip Bone is more than …………and
less than ……………. .

Station No: 3
SEX DETERMINATION FROM PELVIS

S.
N Characteristics Male Female Observation
o.
Size, Weight, (Ileum) Massive, Heavier, Less massive,
1.
Roughness Rougher Lighter

2. Cavity Deep, Narrow Shallow, Wider

Less vertical, Less More vertical,

3. Ileum (Walls)
expanded More expanded

4. Inlet Heart Shaped Round

5. Outlet Smaller Larger

Narrow, V shaped, Wide, U shaped,

6. Sub-pubic Arch
Less than 90 degree 90 degree or More

Opinion: The observation suggests that the given Pelvis belongs to.........................................

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

 Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Station No: 3
AGE ESTIMATION FROM FEMUR
Age of
S.No. Ossification Centre Age of Fusion Observation Inference
Appearance
1. Head of Femur ½ - 1 year 17 – 18 years

2. Greater Trochanter 4 years 17 – 18 years

3. Lesser Trochanter 12 - 14 years 17 – 18 years

9th month of
4. Lower end of Femur 18 - 19 years
IUL

Opinion: The observation suggest that the age of the given Femur is is more than …………and
less than ……………. .

Station No: 3
SEX DETERMINATION FROM SACRUM

S.No. Characteristics Male Female Observation

1. Size Longer Shorter

2. Breadth Less More

Abrupt in lower
3. Inner Curvature Uniform
part

4. Sacral Promontry More Prominent Less Prominent

Broader than Shorter than
Body of 1st Sacral
5. breadth the one breadth the one
Vertebra
ala ala
Articular surface Upto upper 2½ - Upto upper 2 -
6.
extension 3 vertebrae 2½ vertebrae

7. Number of vertebrae 5 or 6 5

8. Sacral Index 112 116

9. Corporo-basal Index 45 40 – 50

Opinion: The observation suggests that the given Sacrum belongs to.........................

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

 Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Station No: 3
SEX DETERMINATION FROM MANDIBLE

S.No. Characteristics Male Female Observation

Size, Weight, Massive, Heavier, Less massive,
1.
Roughness Rougher Lighter
2. Chin Squareish or U shaped V shaped
Body height at
3. More Less
Symphysis Menti
Angle of Mandible
4. Everted Inverted
(Anatomical)
5. Ascending Ramus Broad Not Broad
6. Condyles Large Small

7. Mental Tubercle Large, Prominent Not prominent

Opinion: The observation suggests that the given Mandible belongs to.........................................

Station No: 3
AGE ESTIMATION FROM SKULL
OBSERVATION
SUTURES
S.No. FUSION INFERENCE
ECTO ENDO
Basiocciput-Basi
1. 18 – 21 years
sphenoid
2. Sagittal Post. 1/3 30 – 40 years

3. Sagittal Ant. 1/3 40 – 50 years

4. Sagittal Mid. 1/3 50 – 60 years

5. Coronal lower ½ 40 – 50 years

6. Coronal upper ½ 50 – 60 years

Lambdoid Mid.
7. 50 – 60 years
Part
Lambdoid Distal
8. 60 – 70 years
Part

Opinion: The observation suggest that the age of the given Skull is more than …………and less
than ……………. .

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

 Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Station No: 3
SEX DETERMINATION FROM SKULL
S.No. Characteristics Male Female Observation
Bigger, Heavier, Smaller, Lighter,
1. Size, Weight, Roughness
More rugged Less rugged
2. Capacity >1500 ml <1400 ml
3. Fronto-Nasal Angulation Distinct Not distinct
Steeper, Less Vertical,
4. Forehead
rounded Rounded
Glabella, Supraorbital
ridges, Zygoma, Mastoid
process, Occipital
5. More prominent Less prominent
protruberance,
Occipital condyles, Muscle
attachments
Rectangular,
6. Orbital Opening Rounded, Large
Small
7. Supra-orbital Margin Blunt Sharp
8. Nasal Aperture High, Narrow Low, Broad
Frontal and Parietal
9. Less Prominent More Prominent
Eminences
10. Palate Large, U shaped Small, Parabolic
11. Foramen Magnum Large, Long Small, Rounded
12. Digastric Groove Deep Shallow
More Massive,
13. Facial Bones Small, Delicate
Strong
14. Teeth Large Small
Opinion: The observation suggests that the given Skull belongs to.............................

AGE ESTIMATION FROM MANDIBLE

S.No. Features Infancy Adult Old Age Observation
1. Size Smallest Largest Reduced
2. Ramus Short Stout Reduced
Angle of
3. Obtuse Right Angle Obtuse
Ramus
4. Body Width Thinnest Stout Reduced
Body
5. Less Maximum Reduced
Height
Coronoid Projects below At same level as Projects above
6.
Process condylar process condylar process condylar process
Mental Midway b/n upper
7. At lower border At upper border
Foramen & lower border
Opinion: The observation suggest that the age of the given Mandible is
more than …………and less than ……………. .

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

 Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Station No: 4
AGE ESTIMATION FROM X-RAY OF ELBOW JOINT
General Findings: Plain X-ray of Elbow Joint AP & Lat view, Plate No…………………….

Age of Age of
S.No. Ossification Centre Observation Inference
Appearance Fusion
1. Medial Epicondyle 14 – 16 yrs
5 - 7 yrs
2. Capitulam -
1 year
3. Trochlea -
9 - 11 yrs

4. Lateral Epicondyle 11 yrs -

Conjoint Mass (Fusion of
5. capitulam, trochlea & lat. 16 – 17 yrs
epicondyle)
14 – 16 yrs

6. Upper end of Radius 16 – 17 yrs

2 yrs

7. Upper end of Ulna 10 – 11 yrs 16 – 17 yrs

Opinion: The X-ray suggest that the age is more than ……………and less than …………….. .

Station No: 4
AGE ESTIMATION FROM X-RAY OF SHOULDER JOINT
General Findings: Plain X-ray of Shoulder Joint AP view, Plate No…………………….

Age of Age of
S.No. Ossification Centre Observation Inference
Appearance Fusion
1. Head of Humerus 1 year -

2. Geater Tubercle 3 yrs -

3. Lesser tubercle 5 yrs -

Conjoint Mass
4. 5 yrs 18 – 19 yrs
(Fusion of head, greater & lesser tubercle)
5. Acromion Process 14 – 15 yrs 17 – 18 yrs
6. Coracoid Process 1 year 5 yrs
7. Tip of coracoids 10 – 11 yrs 15 – 16 yrs

Opinion: The X-ray suggest that the age is more than ……………and less than …………….. .

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

 Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Station No: 4
AGE ESTIMATION FROM X-RAY OF HIP JOINT
General Findings: Plain X-ray Hip Joint AP view, Plate No…………………….

Age of Age of
S.No. Ossification Centre Observation Inference
Appearance Fusion
1. Head of Femur ½ - 1 year 17 – 18 years
2. Greater Trochanter 4 years 17 – 18 years
3. Lesser Trochanter 12 - 14 years 17 – 18 years
4. Ischio-pubic Ramus - 6 - 8 years
5. Tri-radiate Cartilage - 13 – 15 years
6. Iliac Crest 14 - 16 years 18 – 20 years
7. Ischial Tuberosity 16 – 18 years 20 – 21 years

Opinion: The X-ray suggest that the age is more than ……………and less than …………….. .

Station No: 4
AGE ESTIMATION FROM X-RAY OF WRIST JOINT
General Findings: Plain X-ray of Wrist Joint & Hand AP view, Plate No…………………….

Age of Age of
S.No. Ossification Centre Observation Inference
Appearance Fusion
1. Lower end of Radius 2 yrs 18 – 19 yrs

2. Lower end of Ulna 5 - 6 yrs 17 – 18 yrs

3. Capitate 2 months -
4. Hamate 3 months -
5. Triquetral 3 yrs -
6. Lunate 4 yrs -
7. Scaphoid 4 - 5 yrs -

8. Trapezium 4 - 5 yrs -
9. Trapezoid 4 - 5 yrs -
10. Pisiform 10 -12 yrs -

11. Base of 1st Metacarpal 2 – 3 yrs 15 – 17 yrs

Head of 2nd – 5th
12. 1.5 – 2.5 yrs 15 – 19 yrs
Metacarpals

Opinion: The X-ray suggest that the age is more than ……………and less than …………….. .

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

 Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Station No: 5
DETERMINATION OF AGE OF THE FOETUS
1. External appearance:

2. Length (Crown to heel) in cms:

3. Weight in gms:

4. Scalp hair:

5. Body hair (Lanugo):

6. Eye brows, Eyelashes:

7. Finger and Toe nails:

8. Meconium:

9. Position and state of the Umbilicus:

10. Sex:

11. Ossification centres:

12. Opinion:

a) Age of the Foetus:

b) Viability:

Signature
Place............................... Name
Date................................ Reg. No.
Official Seal with
Designation & Address

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

 Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Station No: 6

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.

 Dept of Forensic Medicine, Sri Manakula Vinayagar Medical College and Hospital, Puducherry

Station No: 7 - Photographs

Station No: 8 - Weapons

Dept of Forensic Medicine, SMVMCH.