Medicolegal cases (MLCs) are a critical aspect of clinical practice, intertwining medical responsibilities with legal obligations. Proper documentation and reporting of MLCs not only protect patients' rights but also shield healthcare professionals from legal consequences. Undergraduate medical education emphasizes theoretical knowledge of MLCs; however, exposure to real-life practice remains variable across institutions. (1) Several studies have highlighted gaps in both knowledge and practical experience among medical students in India. For instance, a study by Reddy et al. (2013) emphasized the importance of incorporating medicolegal education into the medical curriculum to enhance students' preparedness in handling such cases. Additionally, Sharma et al. (2019) found that while medical students possess theoretical knowledge about MLCs, their practical exposure is often limited, leading to challenges in real-world applications.(2) The present study aims to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) regarding MLCs among MBBS students in Madhya Pradesh using a structured questionnaire derived from standard forensic medicine guidelines. This can inform curriculum development and targeted interventions for improving medicolegal competency.

Study Design: Cross-sectional survey Study Population: MBBS students (1st year to interns) enrolled in medical colleges in Madhya Pradesh Sample Size: 200 students Study Tool: A pre-validated KAP questionnaire based on Reddy’s Textbook of Forensic Medicine. The questionnaire covered: Demographics: Age, gender, academic year, exposure to MLC training Knowledge: 10 multiple-choice questions Attitude: 5 Likert-scale items Practice: 5 experience-based questions Data Collection: Students completed the questionnaire voluntarily during clinical postings. Responses were anonymized to ensure confidentiality. Statistical Analysis: Data were entered into Microsoft Excel and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Frequencies and percentages were calculated.

1. Demographic Characteristics A total of 200 MBBS students participated in the study. The demographic details are summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1–3. Age distribution: 18–20 years: 25 (12.5%) 21–23 years: 112 (56.0%) 24–26 years: 50 (25.0%) > 26 years: 13 (6.5%) Gender distribution: Male: 110 (55%) Female: 90 (45%) Academic year: 1st Year: 23 (11.5%) 2nd Year: 30 (15%) 3rd Year: 40 (20%) Final Year: 34 (17%) Interns: 73 (36.5%) Previous exposure to medicolegal training: Formal workshops: 89 (44.5%) Clinical postings: 60 (30%) No prior exposure: 51 (25.5%) Table 1: Demographic Distribution of Participants (n=200) Characteristic Category n (%) Age (years) 18–20 25 (12.5) 21–23 112 (56.0) 24–26 50 (25.0) >26 13 (6.5) Gender Male 110 (55) Female 90 (45) Academic Year 1st Year 23 (11.5) 2nd Year 30 (15) 3rd Year 40 (20) Final Year 34 (17) Interns 73 (36.5) Previous Training Workshop 89 (44.5) Clinical Postings 60 (30) None 51 (25.5) ________________________________________ 2. Knowledge About Medicolegal Cases Participants were assessed on 10 knowledge items (B1–B10). Table 2 summarizes the responses. Key findings: B1 – Definition of MLC: 151 (75.5%) correct B2 – Scenarios requiring MLC: 164 (82%) correct B3 – Responsibility to prepare MLC: 129 (64.5%) correct B4 – Consent for medicolegal examination (adult rape): 115 (57.5%) correct B5 – Consent in minors: 102 (51%) correct B6 – Authorized personnel to conduct postmortem: 140 (70%) correct B7 – Time frame to report MLC: 120 (60%) correct B8 – Documentation of injuries: 110 (55%) correct B9 – Handling poisoning cases: 118 (59%) correct B10 – Minimum contents of injury certificate: 147 (73.5%) correct Table 2: Knowledge Responses of MBBS Students (n=200) Question Correct Option n (%) B1 – Definition of MLC a 151 (75.5) B2 – Scenarios requiring MLC d 164 (82) B3 – Responsibility to prepare MLC a 129 (64.5) B4 – Consent (adult rape) a 115 (57.5) B5 – Consent (minor) b 102 (51) B6 – Authorized postmortem b 140 (70) B7 – Time frame to report MLC a 120 (60) B8 – Documentation of injuries d 110 (55) B9 – Handling poisoning cases c 118 (59) B10 – Minimum contents of injury certificate d 147 (73.5) Knowledge was generally good for basic MLC definitions and scenarios, but moderate for procedural details, such as consent in minors and documentation specifics. 3. Attitude Towards Medicolegal Cases Five attitude items (C1–C5) were assessed using a 4-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree – a, Agree – b, Neutral – c, Disagree – d). Table 3 shows responses for the key item (C3 – compulsory MLC training). Table 3: Attitude Responses (C3 – Should MLC Training be Compulsory) Response n (%) Strongly Agree (a) 97 (48.5) Agree (b) 60 (30) Neutral (c) 30 (15) Disagree (d) 13 (6.5) Interpretation: Majority of students support compulsory MLC training, indicating positive attitudes toward forensic medical education. Other attitude items (C1, C2, C4, C5) showed similar trends, with 60–70% agreement regarding the importance of accurate documentation and medicolegal responsibilities. 4. Practice of Medicolegal Procedures Practice was assessed by observing real-life or simulated exposure (D1–D5). Table 4 summarizes key findings: Table 4: Practice Responses of MBBS Students Question Response n (%) D1 – Observed MLC registration Multiple times 56 (28) Once or twice 86 (43) Never 58 (29) D2 – Assisted in MLC documentation Yes 65 (32.5) No 135 (67.5) D3 – Attended autopsy >3 times 30 (15) 1–2 times 71 (35.5) Never 99 (49.5) D4 – Observed postmortem findings Yes 85 (42.5) No 115 (57.5) D5 – Prepared injury certificate Yes 55 (27.5) No 145 (72.5) Interpretation: Practical exposure was limited, with nearly half of the students never attending autopsies and more than two-thirds not preparing injury certificates. 6. Summary of Results Demographics: Majority aged 21–23 years, more males than females, largest group interns. Knowledge: Good for definitions and scenarios (75–82%), moderate for procedural aspects (51–60%). Attitude: Positive, with 78.5% agreeing or strongly agreeing that MLC training should be compulsory. Practice: Low practical exposure, highlighting a gap between theoretical knowledge and real-life skills.

positive attitudes regarding medicolegal cases. High awareness was observed in definitions, scenarios requiring registration, and responsible personnel, which is consistent with findings from similar Indian studies. For instance, a study by Reddy et al. (2022) reported that medical students in Andhra Pradesh exhibited good knowledge of MLCs, aligning with our findings. However, practical exposure remains limited, as evidenced by fewer students observing MLC registration or attending autopsies. This gap between knowledge and practice is critical and warrants structured hands-on training during clinical rotations. A study by Sharma et al. (2019) emphasized the need for integrating practical sessions, such as mock MLC documentation and autopsy demonstrations, into the curriculum to bridge this gap. Positive attitudes toward compulsory training indicate student willingness to engage in medicolegal learning, aligning with the growing recognition of forensic medicine as a core competency. Incorporating interactive workshops, case discussions, and exposure to real-life MLC scenarios can enhance students' preparedness. Limitations: The study was conducted in a limited geographical area. Self-reported responses may be influenced by social desirability bias. Simulated exposure levels may not reflect real-life variability across institutions.

MBBS students show good theoretical knowledge and favorable attitudes toward medicolegal cases, but hands-on practice is insufficient. Integrating structured practical training into the curriculum will strengthen students' competence and confidence in handling MLCs.

1) Reddy KSN. The Essentials of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology. 37th edition. Hyderabad: K. S. Reddy Publications; 2022. 2) Sharma P, et al. Assessment of knowledge and attitude of undergraduate students towards forensic medicine. J Clin Diagn Res. 2019;13(7):FC01–FC05. 3) Reddy K, et al. Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding medicolegal cases among medical students in Andhra Pradesh. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2022;16(1):45–50. 4) Sharma R, et al. Evaluation of medicolegal knowledge among medical undergraduates. Int J Res Med Sci. 2018;6(5):1531–1536. 5) Kotabagi RB, Charati SC, Jayachandar D. Clinical autopsy vs medicolegal autopsy. Med J Armed Forces India. 2005;61(3):258–263. 6) Channabasappa SR. Knowledge and Attitude of Medical Students Towards Medico Legal Autopsy-A Questionnaire Based Study. Indian J Forensic Med Toxicol. 2021;15(2):1–5. 7) Jadav JC, Patel BN, Tandon RN. Knowledge and attitude of medical students on forensic autopsy in Ahmedabad city. J Indian Acad Forensic Med. 2013;35(1):26–28. 8) Singh VP, Biswas G. Knowledge and attitude of medical students and interns toward forensic autopsy. J Indian Acad Forensic Med. 2014;36(1):9–12. 9) Chawla H, Tyagi A, Kumar R, Malhotra R, Kumar N, Shankar S. A study evaluating effectual of knowledge, attitude, and perception of undergraduate.