Lakhasly

reaching the truth in criminal cases is one of the most important issues that trouble the criminal judge he always strives to make his judgment based on assertion and certainty, not on conjecture and probability, and to reach these the purpose requires establishing evidence of the perpetration of the crime and attributing it to the accused with the identification of the perpetrator and his eligibility to receive punishment and the extent of his criminal seriousness. it is known that the criminal judge by virtue of the fact that the criminal incident continues in its details and circumstances has a positive role in collecting the means of reviving it and proving it, which requires him to strive seriously to search for forensic evidence closest to certainty and from this the ear print in the forensic medicine may reveal some actions the culprit in the cases. and if the classic evidence for proof in the penal articles is still used, and it is the dominant one in the field of forensic proof, its validity is no longer absolute in the face of the tremendous development of scientific research methods and their harnessing in the justice service to search for forensic evidence by fingerprint, and by that we mean the scientific technical expertise that is associated with objectivity in all cases, in contrast to other classic evidence that accompanies subjectivity and is likely to diverge from the truth. in this regard he may resort to the forensic doctor to serve justice by providing scientific results in criminal cases which, upon adoption, may reinforce or deny previously available evidence such as the testimony of witnesses, the evidence, and even the defendant’s own confessions. they may also help direct investigations in the right direction in terms of the circumstances and circumstances of the crime. or in terms of the perpetrator, since the recognition is no longer the master of evidence because the evidence can be attributed to the unrecognized thanks to forensic medicine through ear prints or other fingerprints such as finger eye and other senses in addition to that definitive medical information that would provide the judge with facts that may be excluded based on the testimony of a witness or correcting examinations of the crime scene, to reveal its circumstances and circumstances. whereas forensic medicine seeks always to search for the scientific truth and present it to the judiciary to enlighten him in the public lawsuit aimed at applying penalties or security measures to those involved in the commission of the crime, based on evidence or proven evidence that settles in the judge’s conscience after examining it and checking it with a balance for them, the man of law is invited on his part to look at some aspect of this scientific knowledge in order for him to consider the content of the medical experience and evaluate its results.