The concept of using forensic science in bringing justice to the victims of criminal offences is
not new to India, the technological advancements not only in the method of committing
crimes but also in the subject itself has posed several challenges to determine the evidentiary
value of the forensic evidence. The admissibility of forensic evidence in Indian courts is often
subject to challenge, with defence attorneys frequently questioning the reliability and
accuracy of forensic techniques and technologies1. This paper aims to analyse the Indian
approach towards the forensic evidence and what judicial pronouncements have substantiated
regarding the circumstances under which forensic evidence is deemed to be admissible. It
also highlights how this admissibility impacts the conviction rate in India.
One of the well-established laws of criminal jurisprudence is that before taking anything as
evidence, the courts have to check its reliability and on what basis it is introduced. Their
admissibility sometimes becomes a matter of conflict in the courts. The quality of an
evidence is based mostly based upon its legal relevancy. The courts have relied upon various
different types of forensic evidences in its different landmark Judgements and thus introduced
the legal reliability of such evidences in the court proceedings. When forensic evidence is
produced before the Courts, the Courts face the question of admissibility and reliability of
such evidence. This question is very pertinent as the innocence or the guilt of the accused is
based on it.
Selvi & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Anr of 2010, the Supreme Court questioned the
legitimacy of the involuntary administration of certain scientific techniques for the purpose of
improving investigation efforts in criminal cases. In the above-mentioned case, the Supreme
Court held that brain mapping and polygraph tests were inconclusive and thus their
compulsory usage in a criminal investigation would be unconstitutional.
The simple reasoning behind this treatment of ‘Forensic Report’ by Criminal Justice system
of Judiciary, can be attributed to the fact that the objective of the forensic report is to provide
relevant fact, as to what happened, which formulates only one part of essentials of criminal
act, that is actus reus. Forensic science can tell us what happened, but not about why it
happened. For ex. Forensic report can tell us if A had his fingerprint on the gun, but the fact
that A had his/her hands of the gun for either murder or self-defence, is still unknown. Hence,
forensic reports face lesser evidentiary value, until and unless backed up strongly by other
corroborative evidence(s).
Most judges of the Indian Judiciary don’t deny the scientific accuracy provided by the DNA
fingerprinting but the worry remains on accuracy and efficiency in collection or procurement
of the samples. Further admissibility of DNA samples can go against public policy and
constitution such as forcing the suspect to provide the sample can be treated as violation of
his constitutional right to not give any evidence which can be used against him.
The important point is to be noted is that whenever the court relies on the forensic evidence
the chances of accused getting convicted based on that increase. And wherever there is an
ounce of doubt about the admissibility of the forensic evidence which in many cases the sole
evidence, the conviction rate of accused decreases. when based on forensic evidence, the
conviction rate in India shows a moderately positive correlation with judicial outcomes,
meaning that cases with strong forensic evidence tend to have a higher conviction rate,
though the exact percentage is not readily available due to variations in case types and data
collection methods.
