Criminal justice administration

BBA LLB

SEMESTER-V

PROJECT:
Reliability and Challenges of forensic evidence in criminal trials
SUBMITTED BY: -
JATIN BHARDWAJ (22LLB050)

SUBMITTED TO:
Ms. Himani Ahlawat
Introduction
Forensic evidence is all information or data that was obtained using scientific methods and
procedures for evaluating facts, related specifically to criminal trials. This encompasses everything
from physical evidence, such as fingerprints, DNA samples and ballistic reports to digital data,
chemical analyses and the like. It is an unbiased resource that can tag suspects to crimes, clear the
innocent, or record happenings based on evidence.

In contemporary legal systems particularly, much attention is given to forensic evidence because
of its capacity to provide testable, scientific and unbiased data regarding a crime setting. Forensic
examination represents an important evidence type in almost every criminal justice system around
the world, and unlike human testimony that has a lot of bias to become an unreliable predictor, it
can strongly identify perpetrators and exonerate the innocent (if wrongfully accused) via objective
methods such as DNA profiling or digital forensics. Enhances the justice system by providing
evidence-based information, reduces wrongful convictions & enhances the institution Although
forensic science is supposed to serve the justice system, the integrity of forensic science must be
carefully protected through strict protocols for minimization and randomization or else it loses its
value in a legal context.

However, Key important aspect of forensic evidence only partially been dealt by the legislature in
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA) through entire new set of definition in where
"electronic and digital records" have been included as primary Evidence under Section 57 which
is obviously include digital forensic evidence still can be adduce but quick admissibility can
reverberate with a tremendous importance since almost all type and nature of evidence are now
normally store electronically.
Types of Forensic Evidence
1. DNA Evidence

DNA can be treated as an ID tag because it may corroborate a reasonable relationship between the
suspect and the crime scene. In other words, if biological samples are found at a location, such as
hair, blood, or saliva, it is nearly definite that the person was in that area. DNA evidence can be
most significant in sexual offenses and unknown victims' paternity cases. Its reliability makes the
kind of evidence most widely demanded and relied on in criminal proceedings.

2. Fingerprint Analysis

Fingerprints have long been recognized as the most accurate method for associating a person with
a particular item or locale. Every person's prints are different, and when associating prints located
on a weapon or at a crime scene, it often very strongly incriminates or exonerates a suspect.
Fingerprint evidence is very simple yet effective in buttressing or validating investigative findings.

3. Ballistics

This is when ballistics becomes crucial in piecing together what happened when firearms are
involved in crimes. This kind of forensic evidence examines bullets, cartridge cases, or gunshot
residue for the sake of interpreting the used weapon or reconstructing the trajectory of shooting.
For instance, if a bullet matches a gun possessed by a suspect, they can be a very strong form of
evidence when taken to court.

4. Digital Forensics

In today’s technology-driven world, digital forensics is increasingly important. It involves

retrieving data from devices like computers, phones, or storage drives. This evidence is key in
cases of cybercrime, online fraud, or even traditional crimes where digital communication or data
plays a role. Proper handling of such evidence ensures its validity in legal proceedings. 5. Forensic
Pathology Forensic pathology deals with identifying the causes of death, particularly when the
death is suspicious or unnatural. Autopsies can clarify whether a death was caused by accidental,
natural, or criminal factors. When there is suspicion of murder, forensic pathologists provide
critical analyses that often impact the direction of investigations and court cases.
What Really Is Holding Back Forensic Science
in India?
High vacancy rate among scientific officers

Of the 3,211 authorized positions across 26 forensic science laboratories for which data was
available, 40% remained unfilled. Of the 1,294 vacant positions, over two-thirds were deemed
scientific roles, which includes persons involved in several aspects of forensic analysis, including
the director, scientific officer, laboratory assistant, or digital analyst.

Budget underutilisation and bureaucratic delays

The funding of CFSLs is provided by the Union government whereas the funding of SFSLs, RFSLs
and Mobile Forensic Science Units (MFSUs) are provided by the state governments concerned
and specific grants from the Union government. The central funding is "highly inconsistent" and
according to the report no SFSLs or RFSLs received financial support from the Union government
in every assessment year.

Altogether, of 16 labs for which data were available on the forecasted budget, nine received as
much or more than the forecasted amount between 2013 and 2017, while RFSL Nagpur and CBI
CSFL received less than half of their forecasted budget.
Additional space required for FSLs

more than half (13) of FSLs among the 25 that furnished data on space stated that they required
additional space as compared with the sanctioned space. This ranged from a nearly 10 percent
increase in the CBI-CFSL to almost 300 percent additional space required by the SFSL in Imphal.
Case laws
Mukesh and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others1

Facts

The Appellants were convicted and sentenced to death for the gangrape and murder of the
prosecutrix. Along with other evidence, the prosecution relied on DNA evidence to convict the
appellants. While confirming the conviction and sentence, the Supreme Court discussed the
importance of DNA evidence.

Findings

The Court noted that India, like several other countries, is increasingly relying upon DNA
evidence. It further emphasised on the importance of such evidence by referring to Sections 53A
and 164A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which relate to examination of a person accused
of rape and a victim of rape respectively to hold that DNA profiling is now a part of the statutory
scheme. After referring to various precedents, the Court held that a DNA report deserves to be
accepted unless it is absolutely dented. In case the DNA report is rejected, it must be established
that there had been no quality control or quality assurance. A DNA report should be accepted if
there is no error in sampling and no indication of tampering of samples.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal and Others2

Facts
The accused were charged with corruption and criminal conspiracy for showing inflated quantities
of diseased apples which the State Government under its economic policy would buy from the
apple-growers. The Court examined the evidence presented by a District Horticulture Officer on

1
Mukesh and Another v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2017) 6 SCC 1
2
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal and Others (1999) 7 SCC 280
his opinion on the fruit-bearing capacity of orchards which had been afflicted by the disease.
According to the prosecution, the evidence of this expert showed that the quantity of scabbed apple
brought by the accused was grossly inflated.

Findings

While examining the opinion of the District Horticulture Officer, the Court held that a person can
qualify as a witness if they have undertaken a special study of the subject or acquired a special
experience or skill. The Court also held that an expert is not a witness of fact and their evidence of
advisory character. It is the duty of an expert to provide the judge with necessary scientific criteria
to test the accuracy of their expert conclusion and enable the judge to form an independent
judgment. The credibility of the expert depends on the reasons stated in their reports and the
material which forms the basis of their conclusions. As the Horticulture Officer had not conducted
any research in assessing the productivity of apple trees in Himachal Pradesh, the Court held that
he did not qualify as an expert under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
References
1. [Link]
2. [Link]
[Link]
3. [Link]
4. [Link]
5. [Link]
data?abv=CEN&statehandle=123456789/1362&actid=AC_CEN_5_23_00049_2023-
47_1719292804654&sectionId=90824&sectionno=57&orderno=57&orgactid=AC_CEN
_5_23_00049_2023-47_1719292804654#:~:text=--
Where%20a%20number%20of,the%20contents%20of%20the%20original.
6. [Link]
evidence/#:~:text=I.&text=176(3)%20introduces%20a%20mandate,the%20implementati
on%20of%20the%20provision.
7.