Author: Priyansha Mittal, Jamnalal Bajaj School of Legal Studies, Banasthali Vidyapith

Forensic science is gradually becoming vital in the proper functioning of the criminal justice legal system, making investigations and prosecutions more accurate, reliable and effective. Similarly, in courts of justice in most jurisdictions increasingly depend upon forensic evidence in proving the guilt and justice to the aggrieved, it is vital that its admissibility and validity should be comprehensively tested, evaluated and relied upon. This essay intends to examine the role of forensic methods such as DNA, fingerprinting, ballistics, polygraph examination, and computer forensics in criminal proceedings. It considers their scientific foundation, testing of their admissibility in Indian and foreign courts, and presenting cases of their challenges to application. It examines their scientific validity, the test for their admissibility in terms of Indian and foreign law, and reports on challenges to their application. Based on Statutes, case law, and comparative analysis, the research identifies gaps in current forensic practice and recommends reforms to better utilize them in court. It focuses on how standardization, legal protection, and skill acquisition ensure that forensic evidence serves justice rather than undermining it in real court.

KEYWORDS

Forensic Science, Criminal Trials, Evidence Law, DNA Profiling, Admissibility, Indian Evidence Act, Expert Testimony, Legal Reform.

The entry of scientific methods—from DNA profiling to cyber forensics—has transformed the evidence scene. Forensic evidence, as strong as it is, is susceptible to contamination, misinterpretation, and mistake. Courts are plagued with the challenge of distinguishing strong scientific evidence from weak sources, more precisely in India, where there are no forensic laboratories and regulatory principles are not strong. The paper attempts to balance admissibility and trustworthiness of forensic methods under criminal trials in the context of legislative action and judicial interpretation. The study is premised on the presumption that forensic evidence tends to be credible and admissible as evidence in criminal trials but its reliability depends on proper procedural steps and scientific integrity. This publication is essential for legal professionals, lawmakers, and forensic specialists. By pointing out central issues and recommending changes, it serves to enhance the rule of law and ensure the rights of suspects.

The growth in the application of scientific methods like DNA typing, ballistics analysis, handwriting analysis, forensic odontology, and computer science forensics is a sign of the objectivity and accuracy required during proceedings in terms of law. This also imposes a responsibility upon the courts to subject such evidence to intense scrutiny so that its scientific foundations are strong and it has proper protection of the law. For, as Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer once said, "Science must serve society, not enslave the judiciary with a false sense of certainty".  Therefore, it is important to explore if current forensic practices truly contribute to unbiased trials or merely provide a false sense of precision.

This article reviews significant forensic tools used in Indian criminal cases, examines their scientific credibility and admissibility, discusses legendary court decisions, and recommends initiatives to make forensic evidence law enforcement better in India. The focus continues to be on balancing forensic science with the Constitution and rule of law.

Forensic science has developed over the years to become an integral part of contemporary criminal adjudication. Nevertheless, scholarly and legal debates have brought attention to issues involving the scientific soundness and legal reliability of many forensic methods. Simon A. Cole, in his critical analysis of fingerprinting, questioned its ascribed infallibility, commenting that while it is widely used in courts, the supporting methods usually have no scientific corroboration by peer review. Likewise, Saks and Koehler (2005) noted that forensic identification sciences, except DNA analysis, usually do not have empirical studies proving their error rates or procedural norms. Garrett and Neufeld (2009) document cases where flawed forensic testimony contributed to wrongful convictions. In India, legal experts such as D.D. Basu have argued that while courts are increasingly relying on forensic evidence, procedural standards of application and interpretation undermine its efficacy. The situation is compounded by the uneven growth of forensic services throughout India. The report by the Human Rights Law Network in 2020 pointed out extensive variations in the quality of forensic services across various states and highlighted the need for a centralized authority to regulate and standardize processes. 

This paper follows a doctrinal research approach which is grounded in analysing  primary and secondary sources of law. It involves critical analysis of legal materials like statutes, court decisions, and expert views for the sake of developing meaningful legal arguments and criticisms. The Indian Evidence Act 1872 and the leading Supreme Court judgments on the admissibility of forensic evidence form the main research sources for the paper. Secondary sources include scholarly journals, international law principles, forensic science reports, and comparative case studies. Sources were gathered from legal databases like SCC Online, Westlaw, HeinOnline, and government reports. 

The aim was to discuss various forensic methods applied in Indian criminal cases, discuss admissibility standards for them, and analyze the legal repercussions they carry. As there is no empirical fieldwork or human subjects involved in this research, ethical issues were confined to accurate referencing of sources under academic honesty. The critique is meant to provide a comprehensive overview of the judicial management of forensic evidence and offer suggestions on how its credibility can be enhanced in legal settings.

Legal analysis demonstrates that DNA evidence is in most instances viewed as the most reliable type of forensic evidence and accepted with firm probative force in Indian courts. The Supreme Court, in Kanti Devi v. Poshi Ram, has established the admissibility of DNA evidence, as long as the chain of custody is maintained and laboratory procedure is followed. In contrast, techniques like fingerprint examination, despite their pervasiveness, have been criticized for their lack of objectivity, especially where partial prints are concerned. 

Ballistics, a popular method, has received mixed responses from the courts. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Wasif HaiderThe Supreme Court acknowledged ballistic evidence but laid stress on corroboration in light of the differences in gun mechanisms and bullet trajectories. Similarly, polygraph tests and narco-analysis have been held inadmissible unless done so after the consent of the subject. The landmark case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka, categorically decided that these coercive methods violate the constitutional right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3).

Digital forensics has gained prominence in recent years, especially in cases involving cybercrimes and terrorism. In Anvar P.V. v. P.K. BasheerThe court set strict conditions for admissibility of electronic evidence, specifically mandating compliance with Section 65B of the Evidence Act, such as the requirement of a proper certificate. These observations indicate that forensic evidence is typically admissible but its acceptance depends on strict compliance with procedure and at the judicial discretion.

The increased use of forensic evidence at criminal trials represents a deep transformation from testimonial to scientific proof. While the transformation is positive, it calls for greater control by the courts to counter the risk of wrongful convictions. For example, the DNA evidence that was crucial in the Nirbhaya gang-rape case (Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi) demonstrated the capability of forensic machinery to establish undisputed facts if step-by-step directions are strictly adhered to. However, cases such as Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P., in which the inability to produce available CCTV footage was criticized, showing that technological evidence not only needs to be reliable but also preserved and produced in court properly.

As opposed to foreign jurisdictions, India remains one step behind in adopting a formal standard like the Daubert Test affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, which tries out the scientific merits of evidence based on peer review, rates of error, and general acceptance. Indian courts have, however, adopted the similar aspects informally, as in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal, where expert evidence was tried out for the basis of science. The consequences of these trends are great. Forensic science supports the mission of the courts to find the truth on one level. Excessive dependence on unsubstantiated techniques can lead to catastrophic conclusions, however, especially within a legal system troubled by infrastructural deficiencies and legal professionals' lack of forensic familiarity. These include lack of standardization of the laboratory, procedural mistakes, and difference of opinion in interpretation that pose severe challenges that must be addressed by reform and education.

The application of forensic science to the legal process has greatly improved the environment of evidence. Techniques like DNA testing and computer forensics have become remarkably reliable tools if applied within framework legal safeguards and scientific protocols. However, this analysis finds that not all forensic methods share the same level of reliability or acceptability. Although fingerprint and ballistic evidence are generally accepted, their probative value typically depends upon the competence of the examiner and the quality of evidence. Psychological and coercive techniques like narco-analysis have appropriately been restricted to safeguard constitutional rights.

It is obvious that to utilise forensically to its fullest potential, overall reforms are the order of the day. Such reforms would entail amendments to law to embrace standards of admissibility under the best of international practices, accreditation and capacity building of forensic laboratories, and continuous education for attorneys and judges in order to translate scientific evidence effectively. Forensic evidence should not merely be admitted by courts but must critically evaluate its evidential worth in each case. The future of the criminal justice system lies in creating a balanced response that ensures the precision of science harmonizes with the principles of fairness and due process.

• Basu, D.D., Law of Evidence, LexisNexis, 8th edn, 2015.

  
  

• Brandon L. Garrett & Peter J. Neufeld, "Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions", (2009) 95(1) Virginia Law Review 1.

  
  

• Michael J. Saks & Jonathan J. Koehler, "The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science", (2005) 309(5736) Science 892.

  
  

• Simon A. Cole, Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification (Harvard University Press 2001).