DR.

BABASAHEB AMBEKAR MARATHWADA UNIVERSITY,

CHH. SAMBHAJI NAGAR (AURANGABAD)

CRITICAL STUDY ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE AND

CONVICTIONS ON THE BASE OF IT

DOCTRINAL RESEARCH PROJECT

SUBMITTED BY

MR. BHANUDAS DIGAMBAR KOLI

CLASS- LLM.1st YEAR

GUIDED BY

Dr. SHAH IQBAL SHABBIR

(LL.M., Ph.D.)

Submitted to the Dr. Bapuji Salunkhe Law College Osmanabad for the partial
fulfilment of LL.M. Degree

2024 -2025

1
 DECLARATION
I the undersigned hereby declare that this doctrinal research project Critical study on the authenticity of
forensic evidence and conviction on the base of it has been composed by me and has not previously formed on
the basis for the avoid degree. diploma submitted by others.

It is original work and if in future there is any contents come under plagiarism, I will be liable the action.

It Is an original work carried out by me under the surpervision of Dr. I.S. SHAH OF Dr. BAPUJI SALUNKHE
LAW COLLEGE OSAMANABAD of the partial fulfilment of LLM-I Year, SEM-II of Doctrinal research project.

Place: Dharashiv
Date: /04/2025 MR. BHANUDAS DIGAMBAR KOLI

LLM-I Year, SEM-II

2
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the, Mr. Bhanudas Digambar Koli .has worked on the doctrinal research titled on a
Critical study on the authenticity of forensic evidence and conviction on the base of it Under my
guidence supervision.This doctrinal research project has not submitted to any other university for
confirmed of any degree or diploma.

Dr. K.Krishnmurthy Prof I.S. Shah

Principal Guide PG- Co-ordinator
Dr. Bapuji Salunkhe Law College Dr. Bapuji Salunkhe Law
Osmanabad College, Osmanabad

3
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Constant Encouragement and Taken Interest Through the Work.

I Am Very Glad to Express My Deep Sense of Gratitude and Goal hearted Thanks To Dr. I.S Shah,
Who Gave Me Guidance Valuable Suggestion for Compilation of My Doctrinal Research Project. I’M Also
Thankful Especially to All the Faculty and Liberian for Their Valuable Guidance.

MR. BHANUDAS DIGAMBAR KOLI

LLM-I Year, SEM-II
Dr. Bapuji Salunkhe Law College
Osmanabad

4
 PLAGIARISM DECLARATION

1.I Know that plagiarism means taking and using the ideas, writing. works or inventions of another as if
they were one -s own. I know that plagiarism not includes verbatim copying but also extensive use of
another person-s ideas without paper acknowledgment (which includes the proper use of quotation
marks). I know that plagiarism covers this sort of material found textual sources and from the internet.
2. I acknowledge and understand that plagiarism is wrong.
3. I understand That my research must be accurately referencing. I have followed the conventions
referencing, citations and the use of quotations as set out in the departmental guide.
4. Thise assignment is my own or my group-s unique assignment. I acknowledge that copying someone
else-s assignment or part of it, is wrong and that submitting identical work to other constitutes a form of
plagiarism.
5. I have not allowed nor will I in the future anyone to copy my work with the intention of passing it off as
their work.

NAME: Bhanudas Digambar Koli

Sign:
Date: /04/2025

5
Critical Study on the Authenticity of Forensic Evidence and Conviction on the Basis of
It

Abstract
This study investigates the authenticity and reliability of forensic evidence in criminal trials, analyzing its
pivotal role in securing convictions. It explores how forensic methods, though scientific in appearance, can be
subject to human error, bias, or manipulation. By evaluating legal standards, notable case laws, and current
practices, this research identifies potential pitfalls in over-reliance on forensic evidence and proposes reforms to
ensure justice.

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction & Background

Forensic science plays a vital role in the criminal justice system. DNA tests, fingerprints, ballistic reports, and
digital evidence are regularly used to support or refute criminal allegations. However, concerns arise when such
evidence is flawed, manipulated, or misinterpreted.

1.2 Statement of Research Problem

Can forensic evidence be considered infallible in determining guilt or innocence? What safeguards exist to
prevent wrongful convictions based on flawed forensic evidence?

1.3 Objectives
- To analyze the role of forensic evidence in criminal convictions.
- To examine the authenticity and reliability of different types of forensic evidence.
- To identify instances where forensic evidence led to wrongful convictions.
- To recommend legal reforms ensuring the accuracy and integrity of forensic testimony.

6
1.4 Hypothesis

The hypothesis of this research is that not all forensic evidence presented in courts meets rigorous standards of
scientific authenticity, leading to potential miscarriages of justice.

1.5 Methodology

This research follows a doctrinal methodology, analyzing:

 Primary sources: statutes, case law, constitutional provisions.

 Secondary sources: academic articles, expert reports, commentaries.

1.6 Scope and Limitations

The research is limited to forensic evidence in criminal trials and focuses mainly on the Indian legal system with
comparative insights from other jurisdictions.

Chapter 2: Forensic Evidence – An Overview

2.1 Definition and Types of Forensic Evidence

- DNA profiling
- Fingerprint analysis
- Ballistic evidence
- Digital/electronic evidence
- Forensic odontology and entomology

2.2 Legal Framework in India

- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 45-51)
- CrPC and IPC provisions
- Role of forensic laboratories and experts

2.3 Admissibility of Forensic Evidence

- Judicial interpretation
- Criteria for admissibility
- Role of expert witnesses

7
Chapter 3: Issues Concerning Authenticity and Reliability

3.1 Human Error and Bias in Forensic Analysis

Mislabeling samples, confirmation bias, and cognitive bias in expert testimony are common sources of errors.

3.2 Institutional Failures

These include inadequate infrastructure in forensic labs, delays in analysis/report, and lack of accreditation and
oversight.

3.3 Fabrication and Tampering

Issues such as police misconduct, political/financial pressure, and planted evidence raise serious concerns.

3.4 Lack of Cross-Examination and Judicial Scrutiny

Judges may have limited scientific expertise and rely heavily on expert testimony without peer review.

Chapter 4: Case Law Analysis

4.1 Indian Cases

- Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010): On narco-analysis and polygraph.
- State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam: DNA evidence role.
- Santokben Sharmanbhai Jadeja v. State of Gujarat: Ballistic evidence scrutiny.

4.2 Wrongful Convictions Based on Flawed Forensics

Examples include cases supported by the Innocence Project in the US and Indian cases where chain of custody
or expert reliability was questioned.

8
Chapter 5: Comparative Analysis

5.1 US Legal Approach

- Daubert standard (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals)
- Role of cross-examination
- Forensic Science Commission oversight

5.2 UK and European Standards

- ISO accreditation for forensic labs
- Greater integration of independent reviews
- Role of Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in evidence evaluation

Chapter 6: Suggestions and Reforms

6.1 Strengthening Lab Infrastructure and Training

Regular audits and accreditation, along with training for forensic and legal personnel, are essential.

6.2 Enhancing Judicial Understanding

Judges should undergo workshops on forensic methods and have access to independent forensic advisors.

6.3 Legal Reforms

Amending the Evidence Act for clearer forensic standards, setting up a National Forensic Oversight Authority,
and ensuring public defenders have access to independent experts.

6.4 Safeguards for Preventing Misuse

Protocols for chain of custody, penalties for tampering, and peer reviews of forensic reports are recommended.

Chapter 7: Conclusion
Forensic science is a powerful tool—but not an infallible one. Ensuring its authenticity and accountability is key
to preserving justice. The judiciary, lawmakers, and forensic experts must work in unison to address gaps, avoid
wrongful convictions, and strengthen public trust in the criminal justice system*.

9
Bibliography
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts
- Articles from Journal of Forensic Sciences, Harvard Law Review, etc.
- Reports by Law Commission of India, NCRB, and Innocence Project (US)

10
1.1 Introduction

The administration of criminal justice fundamentally depends upon the presentation of accurate, credible, and admissible
evidence. In recent decades, forensic science has gained prominence as a powerful tool in criminal investigations and
prosecutions. Derived from the Latin word "forensis", meaning "of or before the forum", forensic science refers to the
application of scientific principles and techniques to matters of law, particularly in establishing guilt or innocence in
criminal trials. As technology and scientific capabilities have evolved, so too has the reliance on forensic evidence in
courtrooms, where it is often perceived as objective, definitive, and immune to human biases.

However, this growing dependence on forensic evidence necessitates a critical examination of its authenticity—a term
that encompasses its originality, reliability, accuracy, and integrity from the point of collection to its presentation in court.
Authentic forensic evidence must meet rigorous standards to ensure that it has not been contaminated, altered, or
misinterpreted. The notion of authenticity is closely tied to the chain of custody, which documents the chronological
handling of evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom. Any break in this chain can raise serious questions about the
admissibility and credibility of the evidence.

Moreover, the authentication process also involves validating the methods used for forensic analysis. Whether it is DNA
profiling, fingerprint comparison, ballistic tests, digital forensics, or toxicology reports, the scientific methodology must
be standardized, peer-reviewed, and generally accepted in the scientific community. Courts in many jurisdictions apply
certain tests—such as the Daubert standard (U.S.), the Frye test, or Mohan test (Canada)—to determine whether the
forensic techniques used meet the threshold of scientific reliability and relevance. In India, while there is no formal
codified test, courts follow principles evolved through judicial precedents to admit or exclude expert forensic evidence
under sections like Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The probative value of forensic evidence is often so high that it can lead to convictions even in the absence of other direct
evidence. This is particularly significant in cases involving sexual offences, homicides, or cybercrimes where physical or
testimonial evidence may be weak or unavailable. While this scientific objectivity has revolutionized criminal
adjudication, it also brings inherent risks. The assumption that forensic evidence is infallible has sometimes resulted in
wrongful convictions. Flawed laboratory procedures, human errors, biased expert testimony, and even deliberate
tampering have come to light in several high-profile cases globally, such as the wrongful convictions identified by the
Innocence Project in the United States.

A further challenge arises from the adversarial nature of criminal trials, where the interpretation of forensic findings may
be contested by opposing experts. In such cases, the trial court is burdened with evaluating complex scientific evidence
without possessing the necessary technical expertise. This becomes problematic when judges and juries are required to

11
interpret technical data or weigh conflicting expert opinions without any specialized training, potentially leading to an
over-reliance on the persuasiveness of the expert rather than the soundness of the science itself.

The intersection of law and forensic science thus raises important jurisprudential and procedural questions. How does the
legal system ensure the authenticity of forensic evidence? What mechanisms exist to challenge its admissibility? Are there
adequate safeguards to prevent miscarriages of justice arising from flawed or fabricated forensic reports? How should
courts weigh such evidence in the broader context of due process and the presumption of innocence?

This research aims to undertake a critical study of the authenticity of forensic evidence and its role in securing
convictions, particularly focusing on the standards for admissibility, the legal framework governing expert evidence, the
reliability of forensic laboratories, and the evidentiary weight granted by courts. Through doctrinal analysis of statutory
provisions, case law, and comparative legal standards, this paper seeks to underscore both the utility and the limitations of
forensic science in the justice system. The ultimate objective is to advocate for more robust safeguards, institutional
accountability, and judicial training to ensure that forensic evidence strengthens rather than undermines the rule of law.

In the contemporary criminal justice system, forensic science has emerged as a pivotal tool in the investigation
and adjudication of criminal cases. Its perceived objectivity and scientific reliability often lead to a high degree
of judicial reliance on forensic evidence, especially in serious offences such as homicide, sexual assault, and
terrorism. In India, forensic disciplines such as DNA profiling, fingerprint analysis, handwriting examination,
ballistic tests, and digital forensics are frequently used to establish crucial links between the accused and the
crime scene.

Historically, the use of scientific methods in criminal investigations can be traced back to colonial-era policing
reforms, but it is only in recent decades that India has witnessed a surge in the institutionalisation of forensic
science, with the establishment of specialized laboratories such as the Central and State Forensic Science
Laboratories (FSLs). Parallel developments in the global landscape—especially landmark cases in the United
States and United Kingdom—have influenced Indian jurisprudence, particularly in adopting DNA evidence and
refining evidentiary standards.

Despite these advances, the authenticity and reliability of forensic evidence have increasingly come under
critical examination. Several cases in India have raised serious concerns regarding the chain of custody,
contamination of samples, delays in forensic reports, lack of infrastructure, and inadequately trained personnel
in forensic labs. The National Human Rights Commission and various judicial pronouncements have pointed

12
out the risk of miscarriage of justice when convictions are based solely on flawed or improperly handled
forensic material.

From a legal standpoint, the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides the framework for the admissibility of forensic
evidence, primarily under Sections 45 (opinions of experts) and 65B (electronic records). However, these
provisions offer limited guidance on evaluating the scientific validity or procedural integrity of forensic
practices. Additionally, courts often face the challenge of balancing scientific evidence against traditional
testimonial and circumstantial evidence, particularly in the absence of corroborative material.

This research undertakes a critical doctrinal analysis of the role and reliability of forensic evidence in the Indian
legal system. It seeks to explore whether convictions based primarily—or exclusively—on such evidence align
with principles of justice, due process, and evidentiary fairness. The study also examines comparative insights
from other jurisdictions, aiming to identify best practices and recommend legal reforms for ensuring the
authenticity and integrity of forensic science in criminal trials.

1.2 LITERATURE REVIEW

A. BOOKS

1. Name of the book - Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials

Author- Dr. B.R. Sharma Page no 467 Edition 6th publication universal publication (lexis nexis) year-
2019

This book written by Dr. B R Sharma is a comprehensive and authoritative text on forensic evidence, also this
book Includes doctrinal analysis of:

o Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act (expert opinion)

o Admissibility and weight of forensic evidence
o Recent trends in digital and DNA evidence

On page no 467 of this book it clearly speaks about who can be called as expert even a doctor is also not an
expert in the case of death due to gunshot only injury he can able to determine but not entirely relied on their
testimony

13
2. Name of the book - Law and Forensic Science

Author- Ishita Chatarjee Page no 263 Edition 2nd Publication – Central Law publication Year-2023

o This book aims to make the technology of modern crime laboratories comprehensible to non-
scientists and discusses the nature of physical evidence and its limitations Strong theoretical
framework explaining the legal philosophy behind forensic evidence.
 Discusses:
o Constitutional implications (Article 20(3), right against self-incrimination)
o Interface of forensic techniques with criminal procedure and evidence law
o This book aims to make the technology of modern crime laboratories comprehensible to non-
scientists and discusses the nature of physical evidence and its limitations

On page 263 of this book it clearly focuses on the physical evidence how to be recorded and what challenges are
there in terms of physical evidence and its limitation

3. Name of the book - Criminal Justice and Forensic Science

Author- S K Shukla Page no 389 Edition 8th Publication – Orient publication Year-2016

 Focuses on the jurisprudential and ethical dimensions of forensic science in the justice system.
 Good source for doctrinal research on:
o Misuse/misinterpretation of forensic evidence
o Wrongful convictions
o Need for reform in Indian forensic infrastructure
 Often used in interdisciplinary law-criminology research.

On page 389 of this book it clearly focuses on the how the misuse or misinterpretation of forensic evidence
is done and on relying on that how the criminal justice system able to conclude the trial in the wrongful way

4. Name of the book - The Law of Evidence

Author- C K Thakkar Page no 1189 Edition 6th Publication – Whytes & co Year-2022

14
These are standard commentaries but contain in-depth doctrinal discussions on:

Admissibility and reliability of forensic evidence

Role of expert testimony in criminal trials

 A good companion resource to more specialized forensic science texts.

On page 1189 of this book it clearly focuses on the how the admissibility and reliability of forensic evidence
is done and how the roles of experts are determined in the trial and on basis of SOP convictions must be
given

5. Name of the book – Batuk Lal Commentary on THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1973

Author- Batuk Lal (revised by A N SAHA) Page no 1021 Edition 2nd Publication – Orient Publishing
Company Year-1999

These are standard commentaries but contain in-depth doctrinal discussions on:

Admissibility and reliability of Reports of certain government scientific experts

Role of expert testimony in criminal trials

On page 1021 of this book it clearly focuses on the how the admissibility and reliability of reports of certain
government scientific experts is done(section 293 of CrPC) and how the roles of experts are determined in the
trial and on basis of that convictions arevgiven

B. MAGZINES

The Journal of Indian Academy of Forensic Medicine (JIAFM) has published several articles that,

Notable Articles Discussing Forensic Evidence Reliability

1. "Scope and Relevance of Forensic Odontology in India – A Review"

o Summary: This review highlights the role of forensic odontology in human identification, emphasizing
the durability of dental structures and their significance in forensic investigations.

15
 2. "Rapid and Easy Identification of Animal Species for Forensic Purposes"
o Summary: This study presents a method using PCR-RFLP for the identification of animal species in
forensic contexts, underscoring the importance of accurate species identification in legal investigations.

Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology

DNA Fingerprinting and Its Role in Improving Murder Crime Investigations

 Authors: Fadhil Radhi Mohamed, Muhanad Jawad Kazum, Abdul Kareem Salman Sagban, Muhamad
Abdul Kareem Salman
 Published: 2020, Volume 14, Issue 3
 Summary: This article explores how DNA fingerprinting enhances the accuracy of murder
investigations by providing reliable identification of suspects and linking them to crime scenes

Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine

DNA Profiling in Forensic Dentistry

 Authors: M. Laksita, K. R. Don, Jothi Priya A

 Published: 2020, Volume 14, Issue 4
 Summary: This study discusses the role of DNA profiling in forensic dentistry, particularly in
identifying individuals when traditional methods are not feasible due to decomposition or damage.

The Role and Importance of DNA Evidence in the Indian Criminal Justice System

 Author: Grette Sara Titus

 Published: 2023, Volume 17, Issue 4
 Summary: This article examines the significance of DNA evidence in India's criminal justice system,
highlighting its impact on ensuring justice and its admissibility in courts.

A Bimonthly Magazine by Aditya Forensic College

Highlights from Issue IV (Dec 2024 – Jan 2025)

16
 1. "Ethical Concerns in Forensic Science: AI and Privacy"
o Overview: This article examines the challenges of maintaining authenticity in forensic evidence
amidst the integration of artificial intelligence. It discusses the potential risks of algorithmic bias
and the importance of transparency to ensure the reliability of AI-generated forensic results.
2. "Digital Footprints: How Forensic Experts Use Technology to Solve Cyber Crimes"
o Overview: Focusing on digital forensics, this piece explores methods used to authenticate digital
evidence. It emphasizes the significance of maintaining a proper chain of custody and employing
robust verification techniques to uphold the integrity of digital data in legal proceedings.

C. LAW ARTICLES

Admissibility of Forensic Evidence in Indian Courts

1. Legal Bites – Admissibility of Forensic Evidence in Courts

This article outlines the criteria for admitting forensic evidence, emphasizing relevance, reliability, and
authenticity. It discusses how courts assess the legitimacy and accuracy of such evidence to reach
informed conclusions.
2. Mondaq – The Role and Admissibility of Forensic Evidence in the Indian Criminal Justice System
This piece delves into Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows expert opinions in scientific
matters. It highlights the cautious approach courts take when considering expert testimony.
3. WhiteBlackLegal – Critical Analysis of Admissibility of Forensic Evidence and Reports in the
Criminal Justice System of India
This analysis examines the challenges in admitting forensic evidence, such as questioning expert
qualifications, validity of methodologies, and chain of custody issues. It underscores the importance of
scientific validity and adherence to legal protocols.
4. SSRN – Relevancy of Forensic Evidence in Indian Criminal Justice System and Analysis
This paper discusses the cautious approach Indian courts take towards DNA testing, balancing its
evidentiary value against potential infringements on personal liberties under Article 21 of the
Constitution.

Non-Admissibility

17
 1. SSRN – Foundational Validity in Forensic Evidence: Issues with the Indian Approach
This article questions how courts determine the scientific validity of forensic methodologies,
emphasizing the need for rigorous, reproducible methods to ensure probative value.
2. iPleaders – Admissibility of Forensic Evidence
This blog post discusses the limitations within the Indian Evidence Act regarding forensic evidence,
highlighting the reliance on judicial precedents due to the absence of specific statutory provisions.
3. SSRN – The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 and the
Need for an Indian Daubert
This paper critiques the current framework for admitting scientific evidence in India, advocating for the
adoption of standards akin to the Daubert standard used in the United States to ensure reliability and
relevance.

D. JUDGEMENTS

1 Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) – [AIR 2010 SC 1974]

Issue: Involuntary use of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain mapping in criminal investigations.

Facts: The case consolidated multiple petitions challenging the constitutionality of subjecting accused individuals to
scientific techniques without consent.

Judgment Summary:

 The Supreme Court held that involuntary administration of these techniques violates Article 20(3) (right against
self-incrimination) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Indian Constitution.
 The court ruled that confessions made under such tests are not admissible in court as evidence.
 Consent is mandatory, and even with consent, the results are not standalone proof—they must be corroborated.

Significance: Reinforced the importance of protecting individual rights against invasive forensic procedures.

2 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal & Ors. (1999) – [AIR 1999 SC 3318]

Issue: Reliance on expert opinions and the evidentiary value of forensic science in court.

18
Facts: The prosecution’s case relied heavily on expert testimony in a criminal matter. The defense challenged the
admissibility and conclusiveness of expert reports.

Judgment Summary:

 The Supreme Court held that expert opinions are advisory, not conclusive.
 Courts must independently evaluate expert evidence alongside other material evidence.
 An expert’s opinion is only a tool to assist the court, not a replacement for judicial scrutiny.

Significance: Set a precedent that forensic expert reports cannot solely determine guilt or innocence; they must be
corroborated by other evidence.

3 Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru v. State (2005)

Citation: (2005) 11 SCC 600

Also Known As: Parliament Attack Case

Summary:

 This case relates to the 2001 terrorist attack on the Indian Parliament.
 The accused included Afzal Guru, Shaukat Hussain Guru, SAR Geelani, and Navjot Sandhu (alias Afsan
Guru).
 The prosecution relied heavily on circumstantial and electronic evidence, including mobile phone records and
recovered SIM cards.

Supreme Court Judgment:

 Navjot Sandhu (Afsan Guru) was acquitted, as there was insufficient evidence to prove her active
involvement.
 The Court held that electronic records, such as phone call details, are inadmissible without proper certification
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
 The ruling emphasized that conviction cannot be based solely on unverified or improperly presented forensic
or electronic evidence.

19
Key Takeaways:

 Reinforced the need for authentication of electronic evidence.

 Highlighted the importance of due process and fair trial, especially in terror-related cases.
 Set a precedent in Indian evidence law regarding digital forensics.

4 Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1

Also Known As: Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case

Date of Judgment: 5 May 2017
Citation: (2017) 6 SCC 1

Summary:

 This case arose from the brutal gang rape and murder of a 23-year-old physiotherapy intern (known publicly as
Nirbhaya) on 16 December 2012 in a moving bus in Delhi.
 Six men were accused; one was a juvenile and tried separately, and another (the main accused) died during the
trial.

Key Facts:

 The victim was gang-raped, tortured with an iron rod, and thrown out of the bus.
 She later died from her injuries.
 Forensic evidence, CCTV footage, DNA analysis, and medical reports were crucial in linking the accused to the
crime.

Supreme Court Verdict:

 The Supreme Court upheld the death penalty awarded by the trial court and Delhi High Court to the four adult
accused.
 The Court relied heavily on forensic evidence (DNA match, bloodstains, fingerprints) and witness testimonies.
 It observed the crime was “barbaric and heinous” and fell under the rarest of rare category.

20
Key Takeaways:

 Set a strong precedent for the importance of forensic evidence in confirming guilt.
 Reaffirmed the "rarest of rare" doctrine for awarding the death penalty.
 Sparked major legal reforms, including the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013, enhancing penalties for
sexual crimes.

5 State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh, (2002) 9 SCC 321

Date of Judgment: 9 July 2002

Bench: Justice S. Rajendra Babu and Justice P. Venkatarama Reddi

Summary:

 The case involved charges of murder against Jugraj Singh under Section 302 IPC.
 The trial court convicted the accused based primarily on circumstantial evidence and forensic reports
(including bloodstains found on the accused’s clothes).
 The High Court acquitted Jugraj Singh, finding the evidence insufficient.

Supreme Court Verdict:

 The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s acquittal, stating that:
o The circumstantial evidence was strong and credible.
o Forensic evidence (blood group matching) and recovery of weapons/clothes with bloodstains supported
the prosecution’s case.
 The Court reinstated the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

Key Takeaways:

 Reinforced the importance of forensic evidence like blood group matching in corroborating other
circumstantial evidence.
 Clarified that a chain of consistent and unbroken circumstantial evidence can form the basis for conviction.
 Emphasized that acquittals by appellate courts must be justified with solid reasoning, especially when lower
courts have relied on credible scientific evidence.

E News articles

21
22
23
24
25
Statement of Research Problem

Despite the increasing reliance on forensic evidence in criminal trials, significant concerns persist regarding its
authenticity, procedural integrity, and the risk of wrongful convictions. In the Indian context, several high-
profile cases have demonstrated that forensic reports—often treated as conclusive proof—may be compromised
due to systemic issues such as mishandling, lack of accreditation, expert bias, or delays. The Indian Evidence
Act, while allowing expert testimony, does not comprehensively regulate the scientific credibility of forensic
methodologies or the conditions under which such evidence becomes admissible and determinative. This raises
critical questions:
To what extent can forensic evidence be considered reliable and sufficient for conviction? What legal
safeguards exist—or are lacking—to ensure its authenticity?

26
Objectives of the Study

1. To analyze the legal framework governing the admissibility and evaluation of forensic evidence under
Indian law, with specific reference to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
2. To examine the authenticity and scientific reliability of various types of forensic evidence commonly
used in Indian criminal trials (e.g., DNA, fingerprints, electronic evidence).
3. To assess judicial trends in convicting accused persons solely or primarily on the basis of forensic
evidence, through a study of landmark and recent case law.
4. To compare Indian practices with international standards and jurisprudence concerning forensic
evidence and wrongful convictions.
5. To identify gaps and propose legal and institutional reforms aimed at enhancing the integrity and
credibility of forensic evidence in the criminal justice process.

27
Scope and Limitations

Scope:
This study focuses on the use of forensic evidence in the Indian criminal justice system, particularly concerning
its authenticity and its role in securing convictions. It covers legal provisions (primarily from the Indian
Evidence Act and relevant case law), institutional mechanisms (e.g., forensic labs, expert testimony), and
comparative perspectives from select jurisdictions (e.g., US, UK, Canada).

Limitations:

 The study is doctrinal in nature and does not include empirical fieldwork or interviews with forensic
experts or law enforcement officials.
 It does not cover civil or quasi-judicial proceedings involving forensic evidence.
 While some comparative analysis is included, it is limited to jurisdictions with well-documented forensic
standards and case law.

28
Research Questions

1. What are the legal provisions under Indian law governing the admissibility and evaluation of
forensic evidence in criminal trials?
2. How do Indian courts interpret and rely upon forensic evidence in arriving at convictions,
particularly in cases where it is the sole or primary basis?
3. What are the key challenges to ensuring the authenticity, reliability, and procedural integrity of
forensic evidence in India?
4. How do comparative jurisdictions such as the US, UK, and Canada regulate the use of forensic
evidence to prevent wrongful convictions?
5. What legal and institutional reforms are necessary to strengthen the evidentiary value and
reliability of forensic science in India’s criminal justice system?

29
Hypothesis

1 Forensic evidence, while increasingly relied upon in criminal trials in India, is not always subjected to
rigorous scrutiny, and its unauthenticated or improperly handled use may result in unjust convictions.

2 The Indian legal framework provides inadequate procedural safeguards to ensure the scientific authenticity of
forensic evidence.

3 Judicial reliance on forensic evidence as the sole basis of conviction, without corroborative material, raises
concerns regarding due process and fair trial rights.

4 Comparative jurisdictions offer more robust standards and institutional mechanisms for regulating forensic
science, which can inform reforms in India.

30
Research Methodology
Meaning - Research methodology refers to the systematic plan for conducting research. It involves the
principles, procedures, and techniques used to collect and analyze data

Types -

1) Doctrinal Research Methodology

2) Non Doctrinal Research Methodology

This study adopts a doctrinal research methodology, focusing on an in-depth analysis of statutory provisions,
judicial decisions, academic commentary, and comparative legal frameworks.

1. Sources of Data collection

 Primary Sources:
o Statutes: Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
o Landmark judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts.
o Official reports: Law Commission of India, National Human Rights Commission, Parliamentary
Standing Committees.
o International legal instruments and guidelines (e.g., UN Principles on the Use of Forensic
Evidence).
 Secondary Sources:
o Textbooks, legal commentaries (e.g., Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Batuk Lal).
o Research papers, law review articles, and forensic science journals.
o Case studies and reports by NGOs like Amnesty International and the Innocence Project.
o Comparative studies from jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada.

1. Methods of Analysis

 Statutory Interpretation:
A close reading and interpretation of legal provisions relating to forensic evidence, particularly under the
Indian Evidence Act.

31
  Case Law Analysis:
Examination of judicial reasoning in key cases where convictions were based on forensic evidence, to
identify trends, inconsistencies, and legal standards applied.
 Comparative Legal Analysis:
Evaluation of foreign legal systems to understand how they regulate and authenticate forensic science,
with a view to extracting best practices.
 Doctrinal and Analytical Approach:
A normative and critical examination of the legal principles, doctrines, and jurisprudence governing the
use and admissibility of forensic evidence.

3. Research Tools and Techniques

 Legal research databases (e.g., SCC Online, Manupatra, HeinOnline, JSTOR).

 Library-based research including case digests and statutory commentaries.
 Systematic citation and cross-referencing using legal citation formats (e.g., Bluebook, ILI, OSCOLA as
required).

32
Schemes of Chapter

Chapter 1 Introduction

This chapter encompasses the introduction of this doctrinal research, a comprehensive review of literature,
delineation of scope and limitations, elucidation of research objectives, formulation of hypotheses, exposition of
research methodology, discussion on data collection, and delineation of the chapters structure.

Chapter 2: Forensic Evidence – An Overview

This chapter includes the definition and types of forensic evidence also challenges and concern related to types
of forensic evidences, legal framework in india, admissibility of forensic evidence,etc

Chapter 3 : Issues concerning authenticity and reliability

This chapter deals with the various issues which are came for deciding the forensic evidence which result out in
a question whether it is authentic & reliable or not. Institutional failures, Tampering and fabrication, lack of
cross examination and judicial scrutiny,etc.

Chapter 4: Case law analysis

This chapter deals with the various case law analysis in which the reliability of forensic evidences are made
controversy.

Chapter 5: Comparative analysis

This chapter deals with the comparative study with India and US and other countries.

Chapter 6: Suggestions and Reforms

This chapter deals with the suggestions and reforms of authenticity of forensic evidence and conviction on
based on it

Chapter 7: Conclusion

In this chapter the conclusion of the entire doctrinal research dealt.

33
Chapter 2 forensic evidence an overview

2.1 Definition and Types of Forensic Evidence

Forensic evidence refers to any scientific evidence obtained through the application of principles and
techniques of natural and applied sciences, which is used in courts of law to establish facts in criminal or civil
proceedings. It encompasses both physical and digital evidence analyzed through expert methodologies and is
often instrumental in linking a suspect to a crime scene, identifying the victim, or reconstructing the events of
the crime.

Forensic evidence is typically presented in the form of expert testimony, written reports, or physical exhibits,
and is considered under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the opinions of experts
in science and art.

Major Types of Forensic Evidence

1. DNA Profiling

DNA profiling, also known as genetic fingerprinting, is a technique used to identify individuals based on the
unique patterns in their DNA. It is considered one of the most accurate and reliable forms of forensic evidence.
DNA can be extracted from blood, hair, saliva, skin cells, and other biological materials. In India, DNA
evidence is increasingly being used in cases of rape, murder, and paternity disputes. However, concerns remain
regarding the chain of custody, potential contamination, and the absence of comprehensive legislation (the DNA
Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 is still pending)

2. Fingerprint Analysis

Fingerprint evidence is based on the principle that no two individuals have identical fingerprint patterns. This
traditional method of personal identification has been widely used in criminal investigations. Latent prints
recovered from crime scenes are compared with known samples from suspects. In India, the use of fingerprint
evidence is governed in part by the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 (recently subsumed under the Criminal
Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022). The accuracy of fingerprint analysis, while generally high, depends on the
quality of prints and the skill of the examiner.

34
3. Ballistic Evidence

Ballistics involves the scientific examination of firearms, ammunition, and the trajectory of bullets. Forensic
ballistics can determine the type of weapon used, the range and angle of firing, and whether a specific firearm
was used in the commission of a crime. This form of evidence is frequently relied upon in cases involving
shootings, encounters, or homicides. Issues of concern include tampering, improper storage, and the need for
advanced ballistic imaging systems.

4. Digital and Electronic Evidence

Digital forensics pertains to the recovery and investigation of material found in digital devices such as
computers, smartphones, and storage media. It plays a critical role in cybercrime cases, financial fraud,
terrorism, and even traditional crimes where digital trails are involved. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act
provides for the admissibility of electronic records. However, the procedural rigor required under this provision,
especially the certificate under sub-section (4), has been a subject of debate and judicial clarification (Anvar
P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, 2014; Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020).

5. Forensic Odontology and Entomology

 Forensic Odontology involves the examination of dental records, bite marks, and teeth structure to
identify victims or suspects. While occasionally used in India, its reliability has been questioned
internationally due to lack of standardization.
 Forensic Entomology studies the presence and life cycle of insects found on decomposed bodies to
estimate the time of death and other post-mortem intervals. Though it has niche application, it can be
crucial in homicide investigations involving delayed discovery of the body.

Each type of forensic evidence carries its own scientific basis, procedural protocols, and admissibility criteria.
While these methods significantly enhance investigatory accuracy, their effectiveness is highly dependent on
factors such as expert competence, laboratory standards, and judicial scrutiny.

35
Challenges and Concerns Related to Types of Forensic Evidence

While forensic evidence is often portrayed as objective and scientific, various systemic and methodological
concerns undermine its reliability and admissibility in legal proceedings. Each type of forensic evidence
presents its own set of challenges:

1DNA Profiling

Challenges:

 Contamination of samples due to improper collection or handling can lead to false matches.
 Lack of uniform DNA collection and storage protocols across state laboratories.
 Pending legislation: The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 has not yet been
enacted, leaving a legislative vacuum.
 Limited access to accredited labs and experts trained in DNA interpretation.

Legal Concern:
Without a clear statutory framework, courts rely on judicial discretion, which may vary case to case.

2. Fingerprint Analysis

Challenges:

 Partial or smudged prints can lead to inconclusive or misleading results.

 Human error or bias in visual matching of fingerprints remains a concern.
 Lack of standardisation in fingerprint collection and analysis across jurisdictions.

Legal Concern:
There is limited judicial scrutiny of how fingerprint matches are established and the qualifications of those who
interpret them.

3. Ballistic Evidence
36
Challenges:

 Improper maintenance of weapons and ammunition can corrupt ballistic comparisons.

 Absence of a centralized ballistic imaging database in India.
 Delay in forensic testing, which may affect the accuracy due to corrosion or tampering.

Legal Concern:
Ballistic reports are often treated as conclusive without cross-examination of the expert, violating the principles
of adversarial trial.

4. Digital and Electronic Evidence

Challenges:

 Strict compliance with Section 65B(4) is required for admissibility, often overlooked by law
enforcement.
 Easy manipulation or tampering of digital files raises concerns about authenticity.
 Lack of technical expertise among investigating officers and sometimes even among the judiciary.
 Jurisdictional issues in cross-border data access.

Legal Concern:
Improper certification or absence of metadata can render critical digital evidence inadmissible, even if factually
accurate.

5. Forensic Odontology and Entomology

Challenges:

 Odontology, especially bite mark analysis, has been discredited in several jurisdictions due to high
error rates and subjectivity.
 Entomology requires highly specialised knowledge and is rarely used in India due to lack of trained
experts.

37
Legal Concern:
The admissibility of these niche techniques is inconsistent and often lacks judicial precedent, making it risky to
base any conviction primarily on such evidence.

General Concerns Across All Forensic Types

 Lack of accreditation of forensic labs and absence of a national regulatory authority.

 Backlog of pending tests and reports, delaying trials.
 Inadequate expert cross-examination and unquestioned acceptance of scientific authority.
 Risk of wrongful conviction when forensic evidence is treated as infallible.
 Insufficient training of police officers in proper evidence collection techniques.

These challenges point to the urgent need for reforms in legislation, infrastructure, and judicial training to
ensure that forensic science serves justice rather than jeopardizing it.

Illustrative Case Laws by Type of Forensic Evidence

1. DNA Profiling

Case: Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 SCC 1 (Nirbhaya Gang Rape Case)
Key Takeaway:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction based in part on DNA evidence, stating that the DNA profile of the
accused matched samples found on the victim. The judgment recognized DNA profiling as a reliable and
scientific technique that can establish identity with near certainty.

Legal Relevance:
Set a precedent for the acceptance of DNA evidence in sexual assault cases, but also raised questions about
procedural safeguards in DNA collection and analysis.

2. Fingerprint Analysis

Case: State of U.P. v. Ram Babu Misra, AIR 1980 SC 791

Key Takeaway:

38
The Court held that fingerprint evidence cannot be solely relied upon for conviction unless the expert is
examined in court. In this case, conviction was set aside due to lack of expert testimony supporting fingerprint
identification.

Legal Relevance:
Established that fingerprint reports must be substantiated by the testimony of a qualified expert, reinforcing
Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act.

3. Ballistic Evidence

Case: State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh, (2002) 9 SCC 321

Key Takeaway:
The Court noted discrepancies in the ballistic report and raised concerns about the chain of custody of the
firearm. The accused was acquitted as the prosecution failed to conclusively link the weapon to the crime.

Legal Relevance:
Emphasized the importance of a proper chain of custody and reliable ballistic matching, cautioning against
convictions based solely on weak or delayed forensic analysis.

4. Digital/Electronic Evidence

Case: Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1

Key Takeaway:
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 65B(4) certificate is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic
records. Without this certificate, electronic evidence (such as call records, emails, CCTV footage) cannot be
considered admissible

Legal Relevance:
Landmark case for the admissibility standard of digital evidence, reinforcing procedural integrity and setting
clear boundaries.

39
5. Forensic Odontology

Case: Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2017) 4 SCC 140

Key Takeaway:
Bite mark analysis was used as corroborative evidence. Though not the primary basis of conviction, it was
considered alongside medical and testimonial evidence.

Legal Relevance:
Demonstrated judicial caution in treating forensic odontology as corroborative, not conclusive, and
highlighted the need for expert backing in less established forensic fields.

6. Forensic Entomology

Note: Use of forensic entomology in Indian courts is rare and mostly undocumented. However, international
examples (e.g., People v. Hall in the US) show how insect activity is used to determine time of death. this as a
potentially useful but underutilized tool in Indian jurisprudence.

2.2 Legal Framework in India for Forensic Evidence and Conviction Based on It

The admissibility and evaluation of forensic evidence in India are primarily governed by statutory provisions
and judicial pronouncements. The key legislative instruments include the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). In addition, the operational
role of forensic science laboratories (FSLs) and expert witnesses significantly impacts the judicial process in
criminal trials.

40
1. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Sections 45 to 51)

Section 45 – Opinions of Experts

This is the cornerstone provision for the admissibility of forensic evidence. It allows the opinion of experts in
science, handwriting, fingerprints, and other relevant fields to be presented in court to assist judges in
understanding complex technical matters.

“When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, science, art, or as to identity of
handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law,
science or art... are relevant facts.”

Implications:

 Forensic experts are treated as witnesses of opinion, not of fact.

 Their reports and testimony must withstand cross-examination.

Sections 46 to 51

 Section 46: Facts supporting or inconsistent with expert opinions are relevant.
 Section 47: Opinion as to handwriting.
 Section 48: Opinion as to customs.
 Section 49: Opinion as to usages and tenets.
 Section 50: Opinion on relationships.
 Section 51: Grounds of opinion are also relevant — i.e., the methodology used by the expert must be
disclosed.

These provisions underscore that expert opinion is not conclusive and must be evaluated in the context of other
evidence.

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

The CrPC provides the procedural mechanism for the collection, submission, and use of forensic evidence
during criminal investigations and trials.

41
Key Provisions:

 Section 53 & 53A: Authorize medical examination of the accused (including collection of DNA, semen,
blood, etc.) in cases of rape and other offences.
 Section 164A: Deals with medical examination of rape victims, allowing evidence collection within 24
hours.
 Section 293: Allows the court to rely on the written report of certain government scientific experts
without requiring oral testimony unless the court deems it necessary.

Implications:

 The CrPC empowers police and magistrates to obtain forensic examinations.

 It ensures victim and accused rights are balanced with evidentiary needs

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

Although the IPC primarily defines offences and prescribes punishments, forensic evidence plays a crucial role
in proving offences under:

 Section 302 – Murder (e.g., DNA, ballistics)

 Section 376 – Rape (e.g., medical and biological evidence)
 Section 307 – Attempt to murder (e.g., weapon analysis)
 Section 420 – Cheating (e.g., handwriting, digital evidence)

In such offences, forensic findings are used to establish identity, mens rea, and corroborate eyewitness accounts.

4. Role of Forensic Laboratories and Experts in India

Central and State Forensic Science Laboratories (CFSLs & FSLs)

 Operate under the Ministry of Home Affairs and respective state governments.
 Handle analysis of DNA, toxicology, ballistics, digital evidence, etc.
 Submit expert reports used as evidence in court.

42
Challenges:

 Lack of accreditation and standardization among labs.

 Shortage of trained personnel and forensic pathologists.
 Delays in report generation, affecting trial timelines.
 Poor chain of custody and evidence preservation practices.

Expert Testimony

 Experts are expected to appear in court and explain their findings.

 Courts have held that an expert opinion must be objective, impartial, and based on scientific
reasoning.

Notable Judicial Observation:

In Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 1091, the Supreme Court warned that expert evidence
should be treated with caution and should not be blindly accepted without corroboration.

2.3 Admissibility of Forensic Evidence

The admissibility of forensic evidence in Indian courts is governed by statutory provisions, especially the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and refined through judicial interpretation. Forensic evidence is considered an
expert opinion, which aids the court in understanding complex scientific matters beyond the common
understanding of laypersons or judges.

1. Judicial Interpretation

Indian courts have developed a cautious yet evolving approach toward forensic evidence. Judicial
pronouncements emphasize that forensic science is a tool of corroboration rather than a substitute for
substantive evidence.

43
Key Cases:

 Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473

The Supreme Court clarified the strict procedural requirements for electronic evidence under Section
65B of the Evidence Act, making the production of a proper certificate mandatory.
 State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal, (1999) 7 SCC 280
Held that courts must not blindly rely on expert opinion and must consider its scientific basis and
consistency with other evidence.
 S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A.P., (1996) 4 SCC 596
Reiterated that expert opinion must be logically convincing and not speculative. The court held that
opinions unsupported by scientific logic should be discarded.
 Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 6 SCC 1
The court accepted ballistic, DNA, and digital evidence but emphasized the need for proper chain of
custody and validation of each link in the evidence collection process.

2. Criteria for Admissibility

To be admissible, forensic evidence must fulfill several conditions:

A. Relevance (Section 5 & 45, Indian Evidence Act)

The evidence must relate to a fact in issue or a relevant fact. Expert opinion is relevant when the matter involves
scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge.

B. Expert Qualification (Section 45)

The person tendering the opinion must be "specially skilled" in the field — such as a forensic scientist, medical
examiner, or cyber expert.

C. Methodological Soundness

The process used must be scientifically reliable and recognized in the relevant field (e.g., STR method in
DNA analysis, AFIS for fingerprints).

44
D. Chain of Custody

Proper documentation of evidence collection, transportation, storage, and analysis must be maintained. Any
break in the chain can lead to the exclusion of evidence.

E. Section 65B Compliance for Digital Evidence

Electronic records must be accompanied by a Section 65B(4) certificate, stating the method of extraction and
that the device was functioning properly at the time.

F. Corroboration Requirement

Though expert opinion is relevant, it is not conclusive. It must be supported by other forms of evidence —
ocular, documentary, or circumstantial.

3. Role of Expert Witnesses

An expert witness plays a crucial role in bridging the gap between complex scientific data and legal
understanding.

Duties of an Expert:

 To provide an impartial, scientifically valid opinion.

 To explain the methodology and reasoning behind their conclusion.
 To withstand cross-examination and assist the court in understanding the findings.

Judicial Standards:

 In Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727, the Supreme Court held that expert
evidence is only an advisory opinion and not binding on the court.
 In State of Maharashtra v. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269, it was held that non-examination of the expert
who prepared the report weakened the prosecution’s case.

45
Challenges in Practice:

 Delayed reports, lack of court appearances by experts, and inadequate qualifications often reduce the
weight of expert evidence.
 Some courts have also expressed concern over partisan bias of government experts.

Chapter 3 Issues concerning authenticity and reliability

Issues Concerning Authenticity and Reliability of Forensic Evidence and Conviction

Based on It

While forensic science is widely perceived as an objective and reliable means of establishing guilt or innocence,
the actual authenticity and reliability of forensic evidence in India are often compromised due to systemic,
procedural, and technical shortcomings. These concerns raise serious questions about its use as the basis for
conviction, especially in a criminal justice system founded on the principle of “beyond reasonable doubt.”

46
1. Lack of Standardisation and Accreditation of Forensic Laboratories

 Many State and Regional Forensic Science Laboratories (FSLs) operate without accreditation from
bodies like the National Accreditation Board for Testing and Calibration Laboratories (NABL).
 This leads to variation in testing protocols, equipment calibration, and quality control, undermining
consistency and reproducibility of results.
 Backlogs and delays in forensic testing often compel courts to accept incomplete or inconclusive
evidence.

Example: In several cases, including the Aarushi Talwar murder trial, the delay and mishandling of samples
compromised the investigation and introduced reasonable doubt.

2. Contamination and Chain of Custody Issues

 Improper collection, storage, or transport of forensic samples can lead to contamination, degradation,
or substitution.
 A broken or undocumented chain of custody makes it difficult to prove that the evidence presented in
court is the same as that collected from the crime scene.
 These issues are especially critical in DNA, blood, and ballistic evidence.

Courts have repeatedly held that chain of custody must be "unbroken and demonstrable" (e.g., Manu Sharma v.
State (NCT of Delhi)).

3. Inadequate Expertise and Training

 Law enforcement officials often lack training in evidence collection, leading to compromised or
inadmissible samples.
 Expert witnesses may lack the necessary qualifications, experience, or impartiality.
 Courts may receive conflicting expert opinions, and often lack the technical understanding to evaluate
them.

In Ram Chander v. State of Haryana, AIR 1981 SC 1036, the Court cautioned against reliance on expert opinion
without proper scrutiny and corroboration.

47
4. Overreliance on Forensic Evidence by Courts

 Courts sometimes place undue weight on forensic evidence, especially DNA and fingerprint analysis,
treating it as infallible.
 Forensic evidence, though powerful, is not immune to human error, bias, or manipulation.
 This false sense of scientific certainty can contribute to wrongful convictions if not corroborated with
other material evidence.

5. Admissibility and Procedural Loopholes

 Non-compliance with statutory requirements, such as failure to produce a Section 65B certificate for
electronic evidence, often renders digital evidence inadmissible (Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020).
 Forensic reports submitted without oral examination of experts may be excluded or carry limited
probative value under Section 45 of the Evidence Act.

6. Use of Unreliable or Discredited Techniques

 Techniques like bite mark analysis, lie detector tests, and narco-analysis have been criticised for their
lack of scientific reliability and potential for misuse.
 The Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263, held that such techniques violate
the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.

7. Institutional and Structural Gaps

 Absence of a national regulatory authority to oversee forensic practice.

 Limited budget allocation and infrastructure investment in forensic science.
 Lack of a centralised forensic database (for fingerprints, ballistics, DNA) hampers pattern recognition
and linkage analysis.

48
8. Risk of Wrongful Convictions

 When forensic evidence is misinterpreted, mishandled, or blindly trusted, it increases the risk of
wrongful convictions.
 In India, wrongful conviction cases are rarely revisited unless there is overwhelming new evidence,
making errors difficult to correct.

International Example: The wrongful conviction of Steven Avery in the U.S. (documented in Making a
Murderer) shows how flawed forensic testimony can derail justice.

3.1 Human Error and Bias in Forensic Analysis

The perception of forensic science as an infallible tool in criminal justice is increasingly being challenged by
evidence of human error and cognitive bias. These issues undermine the authenticity and reliability of
forensic evidence and raise concerns about wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice.

1. Human Error in Forensic Processes

A. Error in Sample Collection and Handling

 Police officers or first responders often lack formal training in proper evidence collection.

49
  Improper sealing, labeling, or storage can lead to cross-contamination, degradation, or
misidentification of samples.

Example: In the Aarushi-Hemraj case, investigators mishandled key forensic evidence (e.g., unsealed samples,
lost exhibits), weakening the evidentiary chain.

B. Laboratory Errors

 Forensic laboratories may commit mistakes in testing, data entry, or interpretation, especially under
workload pressure or outdated equipment.
 Errors can occur in DNA amplification, toxicology screening, or ballistic trajectory analysis due to
lack of automation and peer review.

C. Inadequate Peer Review and Oversight

 Most Indian labs lack a standardized quality control mechanism.

 Absence of external audits, blind verification, or independent replication increases the likelihood of
undetected errors.

2. Cognitive and Confirmation Bias

A. Bias in Interpretation

 Forensic experts may subconsciously tailor their findings to match police theory or prosecution
narrative, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias.
 This is particularly evident in subjective disciplines like handwriting analysis, bite mark comparison, or
even fingerprint matching.

B. Contextual Bias

 Knowing certain case details (e.g., confession, prior record of the accused) can distort an expert’s
interpretation of evidence.
 Courts often fail to recognize that forensic experts are not immune to psychological influences.

50
3. Institutional Pressure and Lack of Neutrality

 Most forensic laboratories in India operate under police or state control, which can result in biased
reporting aligned with the investigation's goals.
 Experts may face institutional pressure to support the prosecution, especially in high-profile or
politically sensitive cases.

Judicial Note: In State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai, (2014) 5 SCC 108, the Supreme Court warned against over-
dependence on police-affiliated forensic reports and emphasized independent evaluation.

4. Pseudoscience and Unreliable Disciplines

 Some techniques widely used in courts — such as narco-analysis, lie detector tests, and voice
spectrography — lack empirical validation.
 Their application reflects not only scientific overreach but also susceptibility to human bias in
interpretation.

In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263, the Supreme Court banned involuntary narco-analysis and
polygraph tests due to their unscientific nature and violation of fundamental rights.

5. Impact on Wrongful Convictions

 Errors and bias in forensic analysis can have irreversible consequences when courts rely heavily on
expert reports to convict.
 Misidentification in fingerprint or hair analysis, or overstated DNA "matches," has led to documented
wrongful convictions globally.

International Precedent: In the U.S., the Innocence Project has exonerated over 300 people — more than 50%
of whom were wrongly convicted based on flawed or overstated forensic evidence.

3.2 Institutional Failures in Forensic Evidence and Conviction Based on It

The credibility of forensic evidence in criminal adjudication is not determined solely by scientific technique but
is also deeply influenced by the institutional integrity of the mechanisms involved — from investigation to

51
trial. In India, multiple institutional failures compromise the authenticity, neutrality, and legal efficacy of
forensic evidence, often leading to unjust convictions or acquittals.

1. Lack of Regulatory Oversight and Standards

India does not have a central regulatory authority overseeing forensic practices. This leads to:

 No uniform standards across forensic laboratories.

 Disparity in equipment, protocols, and procedures.
 Limited compliance with international norms such as ISO/IEC 17025 for testing and calibration
laboratories.

Contrast: In the U.S., the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) provides oversight, while the
UK Forensic Science Regulator enforces compliance with scientific and legal standards.

2. Inadequate Infrastructure and Manpower in Forensic Labs

 Many forensic science laboratories (FSLs) are severely understaffed and ill-equipped, especially in
Tier-II and Tier-III cities.
 Outdated machinery, lack of digital tools, and heavy case backlogs result in delayed and often
unreliable reports.
 Postmortem reports, DNA tests, and toxicology results often arrive after the trial has concluded or
during appeal stages.

Illustration: In numerous high-profile rape and murder cases, delays in DNA report submissions have affected
timely justice.

3. Dependence on Police-Controlled Laboratories

 Most FSLs are under the administrative control of state police departments, raising serious concerns
about bias and lack of neutrality.
 This structural conflict of interest allows investigative agencies to influence forensic analysis
outcomes, compromising their independence.

52
Judicial Observation: In State of Gujarat v. Kishanbhai, the Supreme Court stressed the need for independent
forensic labs to avoid conflict of interest and uphold fair trial standards.

4. Poor Chain of Custody and Evidence Management

 Institutional mechanisms for preserving the chain of custody are either poorly implemented or non-
existent.
 Evidence is often mishandled, misplaced, or tampered with, especially during transfer from the crime
scene to the lab.

The failure to maintain chain of custody has resulted in acquittals or overturned convictions in multiple criminal
trials (e.g., Manu Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi)).

5. Absence of Forensic Science Education and Training

 Investigating officers and prosecutors often lack proper training in forensic procedures, resulting in:
o Improper collection or contamination of evidence.
o Inability to question expert witnesses effectively.
o Overdependence on vague or inconclusive forensic opinions.

There are no mandatory forensic science modules in police academies or judicial training institutes across
many Indian states.

6. Lack of Independent Expert Panels and Peer Review

 Courts generally rely on a single expert report, usually from a government lab, without any
mechanism for peer review or third-party validation.
 There is no institutional provision for creating neutral forensic panels, unlike in countries where courts
may appoint independent experts (amicus curiae).

This lack of adversarial testing of forensic evidence diminishes the objectivity and transparency of trials.

53
7. Judicial Deference and Insufficient Scrutiny

 The judiciary, particularly in trial courts, often treats forensic evidence as conclusive or infallible,
failing to question its basis or reliability.
 There is inconsistent application of admissibility standards, particularly for electronic evidence
(Section 65B, Evidence Act).

Case in Point: In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, the Supreme Court laid down strict standards for admissibility of
electronic evidence, but compliance remains weak due to institutional apathy and lack of awareness.

8. Absence of National Forensic Databases

 India lacks integrated, secure databases for:

o DNA profiles (despite the Human DNA Profiling Bill being long pending),
o Fingerprint data, and
o Ballistics information.

This institutional gap hinders linkage analysis, repeat offender tracking, and crime pattern recognition.

3.3 Fabrication and Tampering of Forensic Evidence and Conviction Based on It

One of the most alarming threats to the integrity of forensic science in the criminal justice system is the
possibility of fabrication and tampering of forensic evidence. While forensic evidence is perceived as
objective and scientific, its susceptibility to manipulation by vested interests — whether police, prosecution,
or private parties — raises grave concerns about wrongful convictions and miscarriage of justice.

1. Nature of Fabrication and Tampering

Fabrication refers to the deliberate creation of false forensic evidence, while tampering involves
manipulating existing evidence to suit a particular narrative. Both are criminal acts and direct violations of the
right to a fair trial.

Forms include:

54
  Planted DNA or blood samples at crime scenes.
 Faked ballistic or fingerprint matches.
 Manipulation of digital metadata or electronic records.
 Backdating or forging forensic reports.

Example: In some custodial death cases, medical or forensic reports have been modified to show "natural death"
rather than injury by torture.

2. Motivations Behind Fabrication or Tampering

 To strengthen a weak prosecution case.

 To frame an innocent individual.
 To protect powerful or influential accused.
 To fabricate "scientific" corroboration for coerced confessions.
 To meet investigative quotas or political pressure in high-profile cases.

3. Institutional Vulnerabilities Enabling Tampering

A. Police Control Over Evidence and Laboratories

 Since most forensic labs in India function under the control of the police, the risk of manipulation
increases, especially when the investigating officers and lab personnel share institutional loyalties.

B. Absence of Secure Evidence Storage and Chain of Custody

 Weak procedures for storing and transferring physical and electronic evidence allow opportunities for
tampering.

C. Lack of Surveillance and Audit Mechanisms

 No mandatory video/audio recording of evidence handling or lab procedures.

 Absence of independent audit trails or third-party oversight in most cases.

55
4. Judicial Responses and Precedents

Indian courts have occasionally acknowledged and condemned such practices:

 In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, the Supreme Court highlighted the need for
safeguards against custodial torture and fabrication of medical and forensic records.
 In Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 709, the Supreme Court cast doubt on the recovery
of evidence in police presence, indicating possible planted or manipulated recoveries.
 In Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court disregarded a forensic report because the sealing and
recovery procedures were dubious and unverified.

However, the courts often rely on documentary or expert evidence at face value, and prosecution-led
forensic results are rarely challenged robustly, especially at the trial court level.

5. Consequences on Justice Delivery

 Wrongful Convictions: Innocent individuals may be imprisoned or even sentenced to death based on
fake forensic links.
 Undermining of Public Confidence: When forensic evidence — which is presumed scientific — is
found to be fabricated, trust in the legal system erodes.
 Impunity for the Real Offenders: Framing the wrong person allows the actual perpetrator to remain
free.
 Judicial Delay: Tampered or contradictory forensic findings often cause long-drawn appeals and
retrials.

6. Lack of Legal Safeguards and Accountability

 No penal consequences specifically outlined for forensic tampering by public officials in IPC or CrPC.
 Whistleblowers within forensic institutions or police departments lack protection or grievance
redressal mechanisms.
 Absence of digital chain of custody systems to track and secure evidence.

56
7. International Comparison

 Countries like the U.S. and U.K. have introduced digital forensics protocols, independent review
boards, and tamper-proof sealing and tracking systems to reduce the scope of fabrication.
 In India, reforms remain minimal and largely reactive, occurring only after serious judicial criticism or
media exposure.

3.4 Lack of Cross-Examination and Judicial Scrutiny in Forensic Evidence and

Convictions Based on It

Forensic evidence is widely regarded as objective and scientific. However, this presumption of infallibility often
leads to its uncritical acceptance by the judiciary, particularly in lower courts. A key procedural and
institutional failure lies in the inadequate cross-examination of forensic experts and the lack of meaningful
judicial scrutiny of the scientific methods and results presented.

1. The Role of Cross-Examination in Ensuring Reliability

Cross-examination is a cornerstone of adversarial justice. It serves to:

 Test the credibility of expert witnesses.

 Clarify methodologies and assumptions used.
 Identify errors, inconsistencies, or biases in forensic reports.
 Ensure that forensic conclusions are not treated as final or conclusive without challenge.

Section 138 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 clearly provides for cross-examination of expert witnesses as
part of the adversarial trial system.

2. Practical Reality: Forensic Experts Rarely Appearing in Court

 In practice, forensic experts often do not appear before the court, and their reports are taken on
record without oral examination.
 Courts accept reports under Section 293 CrPC (scientific expert opinions) without insisting on personal
testimony or cross-examination.

57
  Especially in lower courts, there is a tendency to treat forensic reports as gospel truth, with limited
probing of their validity.

Case Example: In State of Haryana v. Ram Singh, AIR 2002 SC 620, the Supreme Court emphasized that expert
opinion, especially in forensic matters, should not be accepted blindly and must withstand rigorous cross-
examination.

3. Judicial Deference to Expert Opinion

 Many judges are not trained in scientific literacy, leading to overreliance on the perceived authority
of expert reports.
 This deference often results in:
o No questions asked about the standards of testing.
o No inquiry into the chain of custody or lab conditions.
o Ignorance of margin of error, alternative interpretations, or conflicting expert views.

Judicial Observation: In Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar (2002), the Supreme Court warned against treating
expert evidence as "conclusive" without independent judicial evaluation.

4. Consequences of Skipping Cross-Examination

A. Misinterpretation of Evidence

 Without cross-examination, scientific findings may be misunderstood or exaggerated in court,

especially when prosecutors use technical jargon to bolster their case.

B. No Opportunity to Challenge Methodology

 Defence lawyers lose the chance to question the testing procedure, equipment calibration, or analyst
credentials.

58
C. One-Sided Presentation

 Expert reports may contain bias or speculation, but this remains untested due to lack of adversarial
challenge.

D. High Risk of Miscarriage of Justice

 Especially in capital cases, convictions based on unchallenged forensic evidence raise serious concerns
of wrongful conviction.

5. Structural Barriers to Cross-Examination

 Shortage of forensic experts, who are overburdened with lab work and avoid appearing in court.
 Delays in summons and poor coordination between labs and courts.
 Lack of forensic literacy among lawyers, who may not have the training to question complex scientific
reports effectively.
 Courts often ignore defence requests to summon experts due to backlog pressures or cost
considerations.

6. Absence of Independent Expert Panels

 In most Indian trials, expert evidence is introduced solely by the prosecution, with no requirement for
independent or court-appointed experts to offer a second opinion.
 This increases the risk of unverified or one-sided scientific testimony.

Comparative Note: Courts in jurisdictions like the U.K. and Australia often appoint neutral forensic experts or
allow for “hot-tubbing” (simultaneous expert testimony) to facilitate balanced scrutiny.

7. Electronic and Digital Evidence: A Unique Challenge

 With the rise in digital forensics, compliance with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is often
skipped or relaxed, weakening the evidentiary value.

59
  In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) 10 SCC 473, the Supreme Court mandated strict adherence to 65B
certification, yet many courts continue to accept uncertified digital evidence without objection or
scrutiny.
 8. Recommendations for Reform

 Mandatory appearance and cross-examination of forensic experts in all serious cases (especially
where the forensic evidence is pivotal).
 Training programs for judges and lawyers on understanding and questioning forensic science.
 Establishment of a national pool of independent forensic experts to aid courts on technical matters.
 Use of video conferencing or pre-recorded expert depositions to ease logistical constraints and reduce
delay.

Chapter 4 Case Law Analysis

4.1 INDIAN CASEs

Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 SCC 263

Judicial View on Involuntary Forensic Techniques

Background of the Case:

In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, a group of petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of conducting narco-
analysis, polygraph tests, and brain electrical activation profile (BEAP) without the consent of the accused.
These procedures were being increasingly used by investigative agencies to extract confessions and leads.

60
Issues Before the Court:

1. Whether the use of narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and BEAP without the individual's consent violates
fundamental rights under Articles 20(3) (right against self-incrimination) and 21 (protection of life and
personal liberty).
2. Whether such tests qualify as reliable forensic evidence in criminal proceedings.

Supreme Court’s Verdict:

1. Violation of Article 20(3):

The Court held that subjecting an individual to these tests without consent violates the right against self-
incrimination. The protection under Article 20(3) extends to testimonial compulsion, and these techniques
involve eliciting responses from a person’s mind without volition.

Quote:
“Forcing a person to undergo these techniques amounts to an unwarranted intrusion into personal liberty.”

2. Violation of Article 21:

The Court held that such procedures infringe on personal liberty and bodily autonomy, and are inherently
coercive and degrading, especially when conducted without informed consent.

3. On Reliability of the Evidence:

The Court was highly critical of the scientific validity and evidentiary reliability of these techniques:

 Narco-analysis and polygraph results are not foolproof or conclusively reliable.

 Such tests are not admissible as standalone evidence in trials.
 Responses under the influence of such tests may be inaccurate, manipulated, or suggestive.
 Even if consented to, the results cannot be used to establish guilt, but only for investigative leads, if at
all.

61
Key Judicial Observations:

 Scientific Integrity: The Court emphasized that forensic evidence must be objective, reliable, and
scientifically validated to be admissible.
 Consent is Essential: Invasive forensic procedures that impact cognitive liberty or bodily autonomy
require informed and voluntary consent.
 Need for Procedural Safeguards: The Court underscored the absence of a clear legal framework
regulating the administration of such techniques in India.

Impact of the Judgment:

 Narco-analysis, polygraph, and BEAP cannot be conducted without consent.

 Even when consented to, such tests cannot be admitted as substantive evidence.
 The ruling promoted ethical standards and human rights compliance in forensic investigations.
 It marked a significant judicial step in balancing the needs of investigation with constitutional
protections.

Conclusion

In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court firmly reiterated that not all forensic methods can be
deemed legitimate or reliable in the eyes of the law. It provided a progressive and rights-based
interpretation, aligning Indian forensic jurisprudence with international human rights norms. The judgment
stands as a milestone in safeguarding the authenticity of forensic evidence by ensuring that science does not
override constitutional morality.

62
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam & Ors.

(2003) 5 SCC 673

Topic: Role and Admissibility of DNA Evidence

Background of the Case:

In this case, the accused (Rajesh Gautam and others) were charged with the rape and murder of a woman,
followed by an attempt to destroy evidence. DNA analysis was used to match the semen found on the victim's
body with that of the accused.

Issue Before the Court:

Whether DNA test results confirming the presence of the accused’s semen could be relied upon as conclusive
and admissible forensic evidence to uphold the conviction.

Court’s View on DNA Evidence:

The Supreme Court upheld the evidentiary value of DNA evidence and accepted it as a scientifically accurate
and reliable tool for criminal investigation and conviction, especially in sexual offence cases.

Key Observations:

 DNA test is a valuable and accurate form of forensic evidence.

 DNA profiling provides a high degree of certainty and can be crucial in confirming the involvement or
exclusion of suspects.
 The Court emphasized that when DNA results are properly collected, preserved, and analyzed, they
are reliable and admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (expert opinion).
 However, the collection process and chain of custody must be free from tampering and properly
recorded to ensure credibility

63
  Quote from the Judgment:

“DNA evidence is now well recognized as scientific and legitimate proof in criminal cases. When the evidence
is subjected to DNA analysis, and such test establishes the identity of the culprit, it can be safely relied upon,
provided that the integrity of the evidence is maintained.”

Impact of the Ruling:

 Affirmed the admissibility and weight of DNA evidence in criminal trials in India.
 Set a precedent for future reliance on forensic science, especially in rape, murder, and paternity
disputes.
 Encouraged proper procedural adherence to sample collection and laboratory examination.

Conclusion:

In State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam, the Supreme Court strongly endorsed the reliability of DNA evidence,
provided that standard procedural safeguards are observed. This judgment solidified DNA profiling as a
powerful and dependable form of forensic evidence, reinforcing its role in securing convictions based on
scientific credibility.

Santokben Sharmanbhai Jadeja v. State of Gujarat

(2008) 2 SCC 316

Topic: Judicial Scrutiny of Ballistic Evidence

Background of the Case:

In this case, the appellant, Santokben Jadeja, a well-known political figure from Gujarat, was accused of
involvement in a conspiracy to commit murder, along with other accused. The prosecution relied on ballistic
evidence to connect the firearms recovered from the accused with the bullets found at the crime scene.

64
Issue Before the Court:

Whether the ballistic report linking the weapons to the crime was reliable and sufficient to prove the
prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.

Court’s View on Ballistic Evidence:

The Supreme Court rejected the conclusiveness of the ballistic report due to inconsistencies and lack of
corroborative evidence. The Court emphasized that forensic reports, including ballistic evidence, must be
independently scrutinized and cannot be blindly relied upon, especially where procedural gaps exist.

Key Judicial Observations:

 Ballistic reports are not sacrosanct and must be assessed along with other substantive evidence.
 The chain of custody for the seized weapons and bullets was not clearly established.
 The delay in forensic testing and inconsistencies in how the evidence was handled weakened the
probative value of the ballistic analysis.
 The Court reiterated that forensic evidence, including ballistic tests, must withstand judicial scrutiny,
cross-examination, and procedural rigor.

Quote:
“The ballistic expert’s opinion in this case is not conclusive... it cannot solely be made the basis for conviction
in the absence of other corroborating circumstances.”

Outcome:

The Court acquitted the appellant, holding that the forensic evidence presented was insufficient, poorly
supported by procedural compliance, and failed to meet the threshold of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Significance of the Judgment:

 Reinforced the idea that forensic evidence is not automatically conclusive — it is only one piece of the
evidentiary puzzle.

65
  Emphasized the importance of proper evidence handling, timely examination, and establishing the
chain of custody.
 Highlighted the role of judicial skepticism when technical reports are presented without corroboration.

Conclusion:

The ruling in Santokben Sharmanbhai Jadeja v. State of Gujarat marks a critical instance where the Supreme
Court scrutinized ballistic evidence closely and refused to accept it as sole proof of guilt. It serves as a judicial
reminder that scientific evidence must be procedurally sound and corroborated by other facts to sustain a
conviction.

Chapter 5 Comparative Analysis

66
U.S. Legal Approach to Forensic Evidence and Convictions Based on It

The United States has a well-developed and evolving legal framework for the use of forensic evidence in
criminal trials. While forensic science has played a pivotal role in securing convictions, it has also come under
significant scrutiny due to instances of wrongful convictions, junk science, and lack of standardization
across forensic disciplines. Key components shaping the U.S. approach include judicial gatekeeping standards
(like Daubert), adversarial safeguards (especially cross-examination), and institutional oversight bodies such
as the Forensic Science Commissions.

1. The Daubert Standard: Judicial Gatekeeping of Scientific Evidence

Case: Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

The U.S. Supreme Court, in this landmark case, laid down criteria for admissibility of expert scientific
testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. This ruling shifted the role of judges from passive admitters to
“gatekeepers” of scientific evidence.

Key Principles from Daubert:

 Relevance and Reliability: Evidence must be both relevant to the case and scientifically reliable.
 Scientific Validity: Courts must assess whether the technique:
o Has been tested.
o Has been peer-reviewed.
o Has a known error rate.
o Has standards controlling its operation.
o Is generally accepted within the scientific community.

Impact:

 Encouraged courts to reject pseudoscience or unvalidated forensic techniques.

 Led to exclusion or tighter scrutiny of several traditional methods like bite-mark analysis, hair
microscopy, and voiceprint comparisons.
 Promoted the rise of DNA evidence as the “gold standard,” due to its high scientific reliability.

67
Quote from Daubert:
“The trial judge must ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not only relevant, but
reliable.”

2. Role of Cross-Examination in the Adversarial Process

Cross-examination remains the primary tool for challenging forensic evidence in U.S. courts. Under the
adversarial system:

 Defense attorneys can probe the qualifications, methods, and biases of forensic experts.
 Experts may be asked to justify their techniques, explain their margin of error, and reveal limitations
in their conclusions.
 Competing experts can be called by the defense to introduce alternate interpretations.

This process:

 Encourages transparency and accountability.

 Exposes junk science or overstatement by prosecution experts.
 Gives juries a better chance at understanding the limitations of forensic results.

However, this depends heavily on the resources and training of the defense, which can be unequal, especially
in public defender systems.

3. Institutional Oversight: Forensic Science Commission and Reform Efforts

A. National Commission on Forensic Science (NCFS):

Established in 2013 (dissolved in 2017), the NCFS aimed to:

 Set national standards for forensic science practices.

 Recommend policies to ensure accuracy and impartiality.
 Encourage research and validation of forensic methods.

68
Although discontinued, its work influenced ongoing reforms in the forensic community and highlighted the lack
of scientific basis for many legacy techniques.

B. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) Report (2016):

This influential report found that several commonly used forensic techniques lacked scientific validity,
including:

 Hair comparison
 Bite mark analysis
 Firearm toolmark analysis (ballistics)
 Footwear and tire impressions

PCAST called for empirical testing, error rate documentation, and accreditation of forensic labs.

C. State-Level Forensic Science Commissions:

Some U.S. states, like Texas, have established independent forensic science commissions to:

 Investigate complaints of misconduct.

 Review controversial forensic practices.
 Recommend lab accreditation and examiner certification.

Example: The Texas Forensic Science Commission was instrumental in re-evaluating flawed forensic
testimony in several wrongful conviction cases.

4. Lessons from U.S. Legal Experience

 Judicial skepticism toward forensic evidence has increased post-Daubert.

 Forensic science must meet rigorous scientific standards, not just legal ones.
 Cross-examination alone may not be sufficient unless defense is properly equipped.
 Institutional oversight and national standards are critical to prevent misuse and ensure reliability.

69
Conclusion

The U.S. model showcases both the benefits and dangers of forensic evidence in criminal trials. While tools
like DNA have exonerated the innocent and convicted the guilty with high accuracy, other unvalidated methods
have contributed to wrongful convictions. The Daubert standard, adversarial testing through cross-examination,
and forensic reform bodies together represent a multi-pronged approach to ensuring that science serves justice
— not the other way around

5.2 UK and European Standards on Forensic Evidence and Conviction

Across the UK and Europe, forensic evidence plays a pivotal role in criminal prosecutions. However, due to
increasing awareness of wrongful convictions caused by flawed or unregulated forensic practices, these
jurisdictions have implemented strict quality assurance mechanisms, institutional accountability, and
centralized oversight — ensuring forensic evidence is both scientifically valid and legally admissible.

1. ISO Accreditation for Forensic Laboratories

UK Context:

 The Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) mandates that all forensic science providers (FSPs) in England
and Wales must be accredited to international standards, particularly:
o ISO/IEC 17025 – General requirements for competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
o ISO/IEC 17020 – For organisations conducting scene-of-crime examinations.
 This ensures:
o Competence and consistency in scientific testing procedures.
o Proper documentation of chain of custody, data integrity, and reporting standards.
o Annual audits, training, and proficiency testing for forensic practitioners.

European Approach:

 The European Network of Forensic Science Institutes (ENFSI) promotes the harmonization of
forensic practices across EU states.

70
  EU-wide adherence to ISO standards is a central goal for mutual recognition of forensic evidence
across borders (especially relevant in cross-border criminal cases under the European Arrest
Warrant framework).

Impact:
ISO accreditation enhances the credibility, transparency, and comparability of forensic evidence, reducing
the likelihood of manipulation or error.

2. Greater Integration of Independent Reviews and Audits

UK Framework:

 Independent reviews of forensic evidence are routinely conducted in high-profile or complex criminal
cases.
 The Forensic Science Regulator's Code of Practice (statutory since April 2021) includes:
o Mandatory review procedures.
o Reporting obligations for practitioners regarding limitations or uncertainties in their findings.
o Disclosure duties to ensure the defense receives full access to both incriminating and
exculpatory forensic findings.

European Practice:

 Several European countries (e.g., Germany, Netherlands, France) allow for court-appointed neutral
forensic experts, reducing adversarial bias.
 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has repeatedly emphasized the need for transparent
and reviewable forensic processes, particularly under Article 6 (right to a fair trial).

Example:
In Sabeur Ben Ali v. Malta (2010), the ECtHR held that a conviction based on unreviewed and unverified
forensic evidence violated fair trial rights.

71
3. Role of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in Evidence Evaluation

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales. It plays a
critical gatekeeping role in evaluating forensic evidence before proceeding to trial.

CPS Forensic Strategy Involves:

 Ensuring that any forensic evidence meets admissibility and disclosure standards.
 Consulting with independent forensic experts during the pre-trial stage.
 Deciding whether forensic evidence is strong enough to meet the public interest test in the Full Code
Test:
o Evidential Stage: Is there a realistic prospect of conviction based on admissible, reliable
evidence?
o Public Interest Stage: Is prosecution in the public interest?

Key Safeguards:

 CPS can reject flawed or inconclusive forensic reports.

 Prosecutors are trained to assess expert qualifications, methodology, and compliance with
accreditation standards.

CPS Legal Guidance on Forensic Evidence (2022):

Emphasizes that prosecutors must “only rely on scientific evidence that meets high standards of validity,
transparency, and ethical conduct.”

4. Highlights of the UK and European Approach

Aspect UK/European Standards

Lab Accreditation Mandatory ISO 17025/17020 compliance

Oversight Authority Forensic Science Regulator (UK); ENFSI (EU)

72
 Aspect UK/European Standards

Evidence Review Independent expert reviews and statutory disclosure obligations

Prosecution Screening CPS evaluates forensic validity pre-trial

Judicial Role Courts can appoint neutral experts (EU civil law systems)

Human Rights Oversight ECtHR enforces fair trial standards for forensic reliability

Conclusion

The UK and European forensic systems emphasize scientific rigor, institutional accountability, and legal
scrutiny. Unlike purely adversarial models, these systems integrate central regulatory bodies and enforce
accreditation, ensuring that only valid, peer-reviewed forensic evidence reaches the courtroom. This
approach provides a strong blueprint for reforms in developing countries, including India, where forensic
infrastructure is still maturing.

Chapter 6 Sugestions and Reforms

73
Suggestions and Reforms: Authenticity of Forensic Evidence and Conviction Based on It

The increasing reliance on forensic science in the criminal justice system highlights the urgent need to ensure its
authenticity, reliability, and legal soundness. While forensic evidence can enhance the accuracy of criminal
trials, flaws in collection, analysis, or interpretation can lead to miscarriages of justice. The following are
recommended reforms and suggestions to strengthen forensic practices in India:

1. Establishment of a Statutory Forensic Science Regulatory Body

 A central statutory authority, akin to the UK’s Forensic Science Regulator, should be established to:
o Set standards and guidelines for all forensic science disciplines.
o Oversee accreditation and certification of laboratories and experts.
o Conduct audits and inspections to ensure compliance.
 This body should operate independently to avoid institutional bias or political influence.

2. Mandatory ISO Accreditation of Forensic Laboratories

 All forensic labs, public or private, must comply with ISO/IEC 17025 standards (for testing and
calibration labs).
 Accreditation ensures:
o Validated testing procedures.
o Proper documentation and record-keeping.
o Reliable and reproducible results.
 This reform will enhance scientific rigor and international credibility.

3. Strengthening Chain of Custody Protocols

 Introduce a digitally monitored chain of custody system to track forensic evidence from crime scene to
courtroom.
 Any break in the chain should trigger an automatic review of admissibility.
 Training for investigating officers on preservation and handling protocols is essential.

74
4. Cross-Examination and Expert Neutrality

 Encourage courts to appoint neutral, court-approved forensic experts in complex cases, particularly
where:
o Parties present contradictory expert opinions.
o The evidence is highly technical (e.g., DNA mixtures, cyber forensics).
 Cross-examination of expert witnesses should be mandatory, and defense should be granted equal
access to forensic experts through Legal Aid mechanisms.

5. Forensic Science Education and Capacity Building

 Incorporate scientific literacy modules in judicial training programs.

 Upgrade existing forensic science institutes and set up regional centers of excellence.
 Encourage interdisciplinary training for prosecutors and investigators in law, science, and technology.

6. Legal Reform: Amendments to the Indian Evidence Act and CrPC

 Revise Sections 45 to 51 of the Indian Evidence Act to:

o Include modern forensic methods (e.g., digital forensics, DNA, voice recognition).
o Define criteria for admissibility and weightage of expert testimony.
 Introduce CrPC provisions for pre-trial forensic evidence review, especially in grave offenses.

7. Transparency and Public Oversight

 Make forensic lab reports and procedures available for public scrutiny in high-profile or sensitive
cases (with due confidentiality safeguards).
 Create a public complaints mechanism for whistleblowers or accused persons alleging tampering or
misconduct.

8. Judicial and Prosecutorial Accountability

 Prosecutors must ensure that all forensic evidence presented:

o Is disclosed in full (including inconclusive or exculpatory data).

75
 o Has been independently validated and not selectively used.
 Judges should record reasons in writing for accepting or rejecting expert opinions, based on scientific
merit, not just procedural formality.

9. Encourage Independent Review Mechanisms

 Facilitate post-conviction review of forensic evidence in cases of potential wrongful conviction.

 Develop an Independent Forensic Review Board to reassess evidence where:
o New forensic technology becomes available.
o Credibility of old forensic methods is questioned.

10. Learn from International Best Practices

 Incorporate elements of the Daubert Standard (USA) into Indian law to assess the scientific reliability
of expert evidence.
 Adapt practices like:
o Court-appointed experts (EU).
o Annual forensic audits.
o Transparent disclosure obligations from the CPS model (UK).

Conclusion

Authenticity and reliability in forensic evidence are cornerstones of a fair trial. These suggested reforms aim
to promote scientific accuracy, procedural fairness, and judicial prudence, thereby reducing the risk of
wrongful convictions and strengthening the criminal justice system’s credibility. For India, the time is ripe to
move from ad hoc forensic reliance to a structured, accountable, and quality-driven system.

6.1 Strengthening Lab Infrastructure and Training: Ensuring Authenticity of Forensic

Evidence and Fair Conviction

The authenticity and reliability of forensic evidence are deeply dependent on the quality of laboratory
infrastructure and the competency of personnel involved in forensic examination. In India, systemic issues
such as outdated equipment, overburdened laboratories, and lack of trained professionals have led to

76
compromised evidence and judicial errors. Addressing these foundational challenges is essential to ensure that
forensic evidence serves justice rather than hinders it.

1. Modernizing Forensic Science Laboratories

Current Challenges:

 Many forensic laboratories in India operate with obsolete technology and limited automation.
 Backlogs are common due to understaffing and resource constraints, delaying justice.
 Inconsistent standards across states create non-uniformity in evidence analysis.

Recommendations:

 Upgrade existing labs with state-of-the-art equipment for DNA, ballistic, digital, chemical, and
toxicological analysis.
 Establish new regional and mobile forensic labs to reduce caseload pressure and ensure timely testing.
 Create dedicated cyber-forensics units to address rising digital crimes.

2. ISO Accreditation and Quality Assurance Programs

 All forensic labs should be mandatorily accredited under ISO/IEC 17025, the global standard for
testing and calibration laboratories.
 Introduce regular quality audits, proficiency testing, and internal validation procedures.
 Accreditation should be tied to:
o Judicial admissibility of lab reports.
o Government funding and recognition.

Accreditation ensures that forensic reports carry scientific weight and reduce courtroom challenges over
reliability.

77
3. Human Resource Development and Training

Problems Identified:

 Lack of specialized forensic scientists across disciplines.

 Investigators and lab staff often lack training in evidence collection, preservation, and interpretation.
 Shortage of qualified trainers and academic institutions offering advanced forensic education.

Suggested Reforms:

 Launch National Forensic Training Programs for:

o Lab technicians and scientists.
o Police officers and investigating agencies.
o Prosecutors and judges.
 Include modules on:
o Scientific method and standard operating procedures (SOPs).
o Handling of emerging evidence types (e.g., AI-generated media, encrypted digital evidence).
o Legal and ethical implications of forensic testimony.
 Develop forensic science as a career track in universities with interdisciplinary programs combining
law, science, and technology.

4. Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) and Academic Collaborations

 Encourage collaboration with universities and private research institutions to introduce innovation,
research, and funding into forensic practice.
 Establish centers of excellence for specialized forensic domains like DNA analytics, toxicology, cyber-
forensics, and forensic anthropology.
 PPPs can help bring in cutting-edge technology and global best practices in training and operations.

5. Strengthening Infrastructure at Crime Scene Level

 Equip police stations and field units with:

o Basic forensic kits.

78
 o Body-worn cameras for evidence collection.
o Mobile forensic vans for on-site preservation and preliminary testing.
 Train first responders to avoid contamination, mishandling, or mislabeling of evidence.

6. Integrated Forensic Information Management System

 Develop a centralized digital forensic evidence database with:

o Barcode tracking of evidence.
o Real-time status updates on lab tests.
o Secure sharing protocols with courts and law enforcement.
 Link labs through a National Forensic Grid to enable data comparison, training, and peer review of
forensic findings.

Conclusion

Reliable forensic evidence is not just about scientific discovery but about institutional preparedness,
technological capability, and human expertise. Strengthening laboratory infrastructure and building a well-
trained forensic workforce are foundational steps toward enhancing the authenticity, admissibility, and
credibility of forensic evidence. A scientifically grounded and procedurally robust forensic system will
significantly reduce errors in criminal adjudication and restore public faith in the justice system.

79
6.2 Enhancing Judicial Understanding: A Prerequisite for the Authentic Use of Forensic
Evidence in Convictions

As forensic science becomes increasingly central to criminal adjudication, the judiciary must evolve to
critically assess and interpret scientific evidence. However, in India, a significant gap persists between
complex scientific methodologies and judicial comprehension, often leading to blind reliance on expert opinion
or the misapplication of forensic findings. Bridging this gap is essential to ensure that convictions based on
forensic evidence are legally sound and scientifically credible.

1. The Challenge of Scientific Literacy Among Judges

 Judges are legal experts but not always trained in the scientific method, statistical reasoning, or specific
forensic techniques.
 This creates a risk of:
o Misunderstanding technical reports.
o Overvaluing weak or inconclusive evidence.
o Failing to recognize limitations or error margins in forensic results.

Example: In Santokben Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to assess ballistic
evidence critically, not mechanically.

2. The Danger of “CSI Effect” and Overreliance

 Popular media has led to an overestimation of forensic science's infallibility, creating a “CSI Effect” that
can subconsciously influence judicial reasoning.
 Courts may presume forensic evidence to be objective truth, overlooking its contextual relevance and
methodological flaws.

80
3. Judicial Training and Continuing Legal Education (CLE)

Recommendations:

 Regular forensic training workshops should be institutionalized through:

o National Judicial Academy (NJA).
o State Judicial Academies.
o Collaborations with forensic science institutes.
 Training should include:
o Basics of forensic disciplines (e.g., DNA, ballistics, digital forensics).
o Interpretation of probabilistic conclusions and error rates.
o Case law-based learning involving correct and incorrect usage of forensic evidence.

UK Example: Judges in the UK receive periodic training on forensic evidence through the Judicial College,
promoting scientific literacy in courts.

4. Development of Judicial Forensic Handbooks

 Create bench books or forensic manuals tailored for judges, outlining:

o Common forensic techniques.
o Questions to ask experts in court.
o Red flags in forensic reports.
o Guidelines on evaluating conflicting expert testimony.

These handbooks can be periodically updated by panels consisting of senior judges, scientists, and legal
scholars.

5. Court-Appointed Neutral Experts

 Allow courts to appoint independent, neutral experts to:

o Clarify complex forensic concepts.
o Advise the bench on scientific limitations.
o Act as technical amicus curiae in cases involving conflicting expert opinions.

81
This mirrors practices in European civil law jurisdictions, where such experts enhance judicial neutrality and
accuracy.

6. Promoting Scientific Temper in Judicial Reasoning

 Judicial opinions involving forensic evidence should reflect a scientifically reasoned analysis, not just a
procedural acceptance.
 Judgments should:
o Cite relevant scientific literature or standards.
o Analyze the validity and relevance of forensic techniques used.
o Distinguish between presence of evidence and proof of guilt.

7. Institutional Reforms

 Integrate scientific advisors within higher courts for consultation on special benches dealing with
forensic-heavy cases.
 Establish a Forensic Science Advisory Council to assist judiciary on emerging forensic technologies
(e.g., AI, voice synthesis, deepfakes).

8. Strengthening the Role of Judicial Precedents

 Higher judiciary must set clear precedents on:

o Admissibility standards.
o Weight of forensic evidence in isolation.
o Importance of corroboration with other evidence.

Example: Selvi v. State of Karnataka rightly held that certain involuntary forensic techniques like narco-analysis
violate constitutional rights, demonstrating judicial sensitivity to scientific and ethical concerns.

Conclusion

The intersection of law and science demands a judiciary that is not only legally proficient but also scientifically
informed. Enhancing judicial understanding of forensic evidence is critical to ensuring that scientific tools are

82
not misused as instruments of injustice. A trained, informed, and questioning judiciary will act as the final
safeguard against wrongful convictions based on flawed or misunderstood forensic science.

6.3 Legal Reforms in View of the Authenticity of Forensic Evidence and Conviction Based
on It

As the criminal justice system increasingly incorporates forensic science, India’s legal framework must evolve
to address scientific complexities, admissibility standards, and procedural safeguards. Legal reforms are
essential to ensure that forensic evidence meets standards of authenticity, reliability, and constitutionality,
and does not become a tool for wrongful conviction or abuse of power.

1. Modernizing the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Current Gap:

 Sections 45 to 51 of the Indian Evidence Act broadly cover expert opinion but lack:
o Scientific admissibility criteria.
o Standards for validation or reliability.
o Specific provisions for modern forensic techniques (e.g., DNA, digital evidence).

Proposed Reforms:

 Introduce provisions akin to the Daubert Standard (used in the U.S.), assessing:
o Testability.
o Peer review.
o Error rates.
o General acceptance in the scientific community.
 Define “scientific evidence” and “forensic expert” in the Act.
 Codify obligations of full disclosure of lab reports, including limitations and inconclusive results.

83
2. Amendments to CrPC for Procedural Safeguards

Current Gap:

 The Code of Criminal Procedure does not provide:

o Uniform procedures for forensic evidence collection.
o Rights of the accused to independent testing.
o Mechanisms to challenge forensic lab reports pre-trial.

Suggested Reforms:

 Mandate pre-trial forensic conferences in complex cases involving critical forensic evidence.
 Provide the accused with statutory right to demand re-testing by a court-recognized independent lab.
 Require the investigating officer to file a chain of custody affidavit with every forensic report.
 Introduce guidelines for seizure, packaging, and preservation of evidence.

3. Accreditation and Oversight through Statute

Current Gap:

 No central law regulates forensic laboratories’ accreditation, functioning, or accountability.

Reform Proposal:

 Enact a Forensic Science Regulation Act, establishing:

o A National Forensic Science Authority to set quality benchmarks.
o Mandatory ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation for labs.
o Disciplinary proceedings for scientific misconduct or evidence tampering.

This mirrors international models like the UK Forensic Science Regulator Act (2021).

84
4. Expert Witness Reforms

Challenges Identified:

 Experts often act as prosecution witnesses, raising bias concerns.

 Defense rarely has access to counter-experts due to cost or lack of legal aid provisions.

Proposed Legal Solutions:

 Provide for court-appointed neutral experts in forensic-heavy trials.

 Amend the Legal Services Authorities Act to include free forensic assistance to under-trial accused.
 Enact rules requiring certification of expert competence and disclosure of affiliations.

5. Statutory Recognition of Emerging Forensic Techniques

 Create a schedule under the Evidence Act that lists accepted forensic methods and technologies.
 Periodically update the schedule based on scientific validation and international standards.
 Include safeguards against misuse of controversial methods like narco-analysis, brain-mapping, etc.,
following Selvi v. State of Karnataka.

6. Post-Conviction Forensic Review Mechanism

 Enact legislation enabling re-evaluation of forensic evidence post-conviction, especially in:

o Death penalty cases.
o Cases relying solely or primarily on forensic evidence.
 Allow access to newer techniques (e.g., advanced DNA testing) to establish innocence.

This aligns with U.S. post-conviction DNA statutes and the UK’s Criminal Cases Review Commission model.

7. Data Protection and Digital Forensics Regulation

 With the rise of cybercrime and digital forensics:

o Introduce a Digital Forensics Code aligned with the Data Protection Act.
o Regulate privacy safeguards, admissibility, and metadata integrity for digital evidence.

85
8. Mandatory Forensic Audit of Wrongful Conviction Cases

 Require forensic audit and review in every case where:

o A conviction is overturned on appeal due to flawed forensic evidence.
o Compensation is claimed for wrongful imprisonment.
 Establish a compulsory reporting mechanism for forensic errors and misconduct.

Conclusion

Legal reforms are not just a response to technological change but a safeguard for constitutional rights,
scientific validity, and procedural fairness. By strengthening evidentiary laws, procedural checks, and
institutional accountability, India can ensure that forensic science truly serves justice and does not become a tool
of oppression or error. A dynamic legal framework that respects both science and due process is essential for the
future of criminal adjudication.

6.4 Safeguards for Preventing Misuse of Forensic Evidence in Criminal Convictions

While forensic science holds tremendous potential in enhancing truth-finding in the criminal justice system, its
misuse — whether deliberate or inadvertent — can lead to miscarriage of justice, wrongful convictions, and
erosion of public trust. Therefore, strong and proactive safeguards are essential to prevent manipulation,
tampering, or blind reliance on forensic techniques. These safeguards must operate at every level — from crime
scene to courtroom.

1. Strict Chain of Custody Protocols

Problem:

 Evidence is frequently compromised due to mishandling, loss of samples, or substitution.

Safeguard:

 Implement digitally tracked chain-of-custody systems with:

o Unique barcodes or RFID tags on evidence.

86
 o Electronic logging of each transfer.
o Mandatory custodial affidavits submitted with forensic reports.

Courts must treat any break in the chain as a red flag affecting evidentiary value.

2. Mandatory Accreditation of Forensic Labs

 Only accredited labs (ISO/IEC 17025) should be permitted to submit forensic reports in court.
 Accreditation should be monitored by an independent forensic oversight body.
 Labs must follow standard operating procedures (SOPs) and be subject to periodic external audits.

This ensures minimum scientific and ethical standards are uniformly maintained.

3. Independent Forensic Review Boards

 Create State and National Forensic Review Boards comprising:

o Judges.
o Forensic scientists.
o Academics and civil society members.
 Functions:
o Conduct reviews in cases of alleged tampering or malpractice.
o Recommend disciplinary action against experts found guilty of misconduct.
o Maintain a blacklist of discredited techniques and experts.

4. Admissibility Hearings and Expert Scrutiny

Judicial Safeguards:

 Require pre-trial admissibility hearings (similar to Daubert hearings in the U.S.) to:
o Assess the scientific validity and relevance of the forensic technique.
o Examine the credentials and impartiality of the expert.
 Encourage cross-examination of forensic experts, focusing on:
o Methodology used.

87
 o Margin of error.
o Whether the results are conclusive or probabilistic.

5. Rights of the Accused

 Accused must be given the right to independent testing or re-testing of forensic evidence by a neutral
or court-appointed lab.
 Provide free expert assistance through legal aid for indigent accused.
 Introduce the right to inspect all forensic documentation, including lab logs, calibration certificates,
and inconclusive findings.

6. Forensic Whistleblower Protection

 Introduce statutory protection for lab personnel who report malpractice, fabrication, or political
pressure.
 Encourage anonymous reporting through forensic regulatory authorities.

Whistleblowers play a vital role in exposing institutional misuse or cover-ups in forensic practices.

7. Forensic Ethics Code and Expert Accountability

 Mandate all forensic experts to sign and follow a Code of Ethics which includes:
o Objectivity and neutrality.
o Full disclosure of limitations.
o Avoidance of prosecutorial bias.
 Any breach should lead to disqualification from giving expert testimony and possible criminal
prosecution.

8. Digital Forensics Safeguards

 Introduce robust protections in handling digital evidence, including:

o Use of hashing algorithms to detect tampering.
o Maintaining digital logs for all file access or modifications.

88
 o Restrictions on duplicate data creation without logging.

9. Post-Conviction Review and Innocence Commissions

 Allow for the reopening of cases where forensic evidence was central to conviction and:
o Newer techniques question the original results.
o Procedural irregularities (e.g., lack of chain of custody) are later discovered.
 Establish Innocence Review Boards to investigate claims of wrongful conviction arising from misuse
or error in forensic science.

10. Judicial Education and Scientific Literacy

 Judges must be trained to detect red flags in forensic reports and scrutinize scientific claims critically.
 Incorporate scientific reasoning modules in judicial training academies.
 Promote a culture of questioning expert evidence, not uncritically accepting it.

89
Chapter 7- Conclusion

Forensic science holds an indispensable place in modern criminal justice, offering the promise of objectivity and
scientific certainty. However, the authenticity, reliability, and proper application of forensic evidence remain
contested and vulnerable aspects, particularly in a system that still struggles with infrastructural gaps, human
fallibility, and procedural shortcomings.

Through this study, it becomes evident that forensic evidence—though inherently scientific—is not immune
to manipulation, error, or misinterpretation. Issues such as faulty collection procedures, lack of
standardization across laboratories, expert bias, and inadequate judicial scrutiny have often compromised the
evidentiary value of forensic inputs, sometimes resulting in wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice.
High-profile cases, including Selvi v. State of Karnataka and Santokben Sharmanbhai Jadeja v. State of
Gujarat, show that the judiciary is gradually evolving in its understanding of forensic limitations—but a lot
remains to be done.

The comparative analysis with US, UK, and European models further underscores the need for India to
embrace structured admissibility standards (such as the Daubert standard), ensure lab accreditation, and
facilitate cross-examination and independent review. The critical takeaway is that forensic evidence must
supplement the truth-seeking process, not substitute it—and only when handled within a robust legal and
ethical framework.

Thus, moving forward, a multifaceted reform agenda is necessary:

 Strengthening forensic infrastructure,

 Training judges and investigators,
 Establishing independent oversight bodies, and
 Amending the legal framework to uphold both scientific rigor and due process.

Ultimately, forensic evidence should serve justice—not merely confirm pre-formed narratives. Authenticity, in
this context, is not just about scientific accuracy but also about fairness, transparency, and accountability at

90
every stage of its use. When the criminal justice system honors these principles, forensic science can truly fulfill
its potential as a powerful tool for justice rather than a perilous weapon of error.

Bibliography

- Indian Evidence Act, 1872

- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Judgments of Supreme Court and High Courts
- Articles from Journal of Forensic Sciences, Harvard Law Review, etc.
- Reports by Law Commission of India, NCRB, and Innocence Project (US)

Websites Referred

www.Basicsofforensicevidences.in

www.latestlaw.in

www.livelaw.in

www.ipleaders.in

www.forensicevidencereliabilty,in

www.forensicanalysissop.in

www.manupatra.in

www.verdictum.in

www.scconline.in

91
92