ABSTRACT
Introduction: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a common issue in any society and the reported cases are just the tip of an iceberg as most of the victims are reluctant to come to the criminal justice system. Forensic experts are often encountering the victims who chose to seek justice. Evaluation of the nature, consequences, and underlying factors are needed in planning preventive measures. Objectives: To describe the patterns and associated factors of IPV among victims who reported to Office of the Judicial Medical Officer of Colombo North Teaching Hospital and to specifically describe the patterns prior and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A retrospective descriptive study based on 471 medicolegal records of the victims who had undergone medicolegal examination following IPV during last two years (March 2019 to February 2021). Results: Out of 471, 206 cases were reported prepandemic and 265 reported postpandemic periods. Even though majority were females there were 21 males. Types of abuse were complex and often interrelated. There were 463 who had experienced physical injuries while there were 20 who had been subjected to sexual violence. Face was the commonest target of assault (63%). Substance abuse was identified as the commonest predisposing factor (56%). Even though repeated abuse was common, 42.5% of the victims had never made any complaints to the police. Despite multiple complains, 39.7% had experienced repeated violence. Conclusion: Victims of IPV are silently suffering for many long years. Failure in the response from authorities was identified. COVID-19 pandemic has become an additional risk factor for IPV. Strengthening of legal and social responses is the need of the hour.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Violence with physical assault is a common cause of morbidity and mortality prevalent but not limited to underdeveloped countries. The opinion of the forensic expert is often indispensable in such cases to determine the penalties. This study was planned to describe the pattern of presentation of the victims and evaluate the strengths and limitations in formulating a scientific medicolegal opinion based on the findings of the victim. Methods: A retrospective descriptive study based on the case records of the victims of assault admitted to Colombo North Teaching Hospital, Ragama, Sri Lanka, was conducted for four years. Results: Out of the 400 victims, the majority (72% n = 290) were males and of the age-group of 21 to 40 (n = 216). The reason for assault in the majority was sudden provocation (n = 99, 25%), followed by previous long-duration enmity (n = 89, 22%). The majority (83%) had isolated blunt force trauma, and the injuries were nongrievous (74%). Defense injuries were significantly associated with attempted defense (p = 0.000) and sharp force trauma (p = 0.002). The underlying reason for the assault was not significantly associated with the causative weapon (p = 0.228) or body region injured (p = 0.195). Conclusions: Even though the presentation and the pattern of injures are definitely of value in formulating a scientific opinion, the study identified the limitations of the forensic experts, and the need for a holistic approach at the investigations was highlighted.
