​Admissibility​​of​​Forensic​​Evidence​​under​​Indian​​Law:​​A​​Critical​​Study​

​Chapter​​I​​-​ ​Introduction​

​ orensic​ ​science​ ​has​ ​become​ ​essential​ ​to​ ​criminal​ ​justice​ ​in​ ​India​ ​because​ ​it​ ​offers​ ​objective​
F
​information​ ​that​ ​can​ ​either​ ​support​ ​or​ ​contradict​ ​oral​ ​testimony.​ ​The​ ​right​ ​to​ ​a​ ​fair​ ​trial​ ​under​
​Article​​21​​of​​the​​Constitution​​requires​​courts​​to​​rely​​on​​evidence​​that​​is​​not​​only​​relevant​​but​​also​
​scientifically​ ​reliable.​ ​Modern​ ​criminal​ ​cases​ ​include​ ​scientific​ ​aspects​ ​such​ ​as​ ​DNA​ ​testing,​
​digital​​evidence,​​fingerprint​​comparison,​​medical​​examination,​​toxicology,​​and​​ballistic​​analysis.​
​With​​the​​enforcement​​of​​the​​Bharatiya​​Sakshya​​Adhiniyam,​​2023​​(BSA​​2023),​​the​​legal​​system​
​now​ ​formally​ ​recognises​ ​how​ ​scientific​ ​methods​ ​help​ ​courts​ ​understand​ ​facts​ ​that​ ​ordinary​
​witnesses​​or​​judges​​cannot​​explain​​on​​their​​own.​

​ owever,​ ​scientific​ ​evidence​ ​does​ ​not​ ​become​ ​legally​ ​acceptable​ ​just​ ​because​ ​it​ ​is​ ​based​ ​on​
H
​technology.​​Courts​​are​​expected​​to​​examine​​whether​​the​​scientific​​material​​was​​collected​​legally,​
​preserved​​properly,​​and​​interpreted​​by​​a​​qualified​​expert.​​Courts​​must​​examine​​both​​the​​method​
​adopted​​and​​the​​manner​​in​​which​​it​​was​​obtained.​​Therefore,​​the​​legal​​value​​of​​forensic​​evidence​
​depends​​on​​both​​scientific​​soundness​​and​​compliance​​with​​legal​​procedure.​

​Chapter​​II.​​Forensic​​Evidence​​under​​the​​Bharatiya​​Sakshya​​Adhiniyam,​​2023​

​ nder​ ​Section​ ​40​ ​of​ ​the​ ​BSA​ ​2023,​ ​expert​ ​opinion​​may​​be​​used​​when​​a​​case​​involves​​matters​

U
​that​ ​require​ ​specialised​ ​knowledge,​ ​such​ ​as​ ​science,​ ​handwriting,​ ​fingerprints,​ ​medicine,​ ​and​
​electronic​ ​data.​ ​Expert​ ​opinion​ ​is​ ​admissible​ ​only​ ​to​ ​assist​ ​the​ ​court;​ ​it​​does​​not​​automatically​
​decide​ ​guilt​ ​or​ ​innocence.​ ​The​ ​judge​ ​remains​ ​the​ ​ultimate​ ​decision-maker,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​expert​ ​acts​
​only​​as​​a​​technical​​guide.​​For​​this​​reason,​​expert​​evidence​​must​​be​​based​​on​​recognised​​scientific​
​principles​​and​​presented​​by​​someone​​with​​proven​​qualifications.​

​ ection​​63​​of​​the​​BSA​​2023​​regulates​​electronic​​evidence.​​It​​requires​​a​​certification​​to​​show​​that​
S
​the​ ​digital​ ​material​ ​has​ ​been​ ​obtained​ ​from​ ​a​ ​reliable​ ​source​ ​and​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​altered.​ ​This​
​reflects​ ​the​ ​rule​ ​laid​ ​down​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Arjun​ ​Panditrao​ ​Khotkar​ ​v​ ​Kailash​
​Kushanrao​ ​Gorantyal​​,​ ​where​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​held​ ​that​ ​digital​ ​evidence​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​admitted​ ​unless​
​accompanied​​by​​certification​​proving​​its​​authenticity.¹​​The​​requirement​​prevents​​manipulation​​of​
​electronic​​records​​and​​ensures​​that​​courts​​rely​​only​​on​​genuine​​digital​​data.​

​ part​ ​from​ ​the​ ​BSA​ ​2023,​ ​procedural​ ​laws​ ​such​ ​as​ ​the​ ​Bharatiya​ ​Nyaya​ ​Sanhita,​ ​2023,​ ​and​
A
​special​ ​statutes​​like​​the​​NDPS​​Act​​impose​​strict​​requirements​​on​​how​​evidence​​must​​be​​seized,​
​sealed,​ ​and​ ​analysed.​ ​If​ ​rules​ ​are​ ​violated,​ ​forensic​ ​results​ ​become​ ​unreliable.​ ​The​ ​Supreme​
​Court​ ​in​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India​ ​v​ ​Bal​ ​Mukund​ ​held​ ​that​ ​improper​ ​sampling​ ​or​ ​sealing​ ​of​ ​seized​
s​ ubstances​ ​makes​ ​the​ ​scientific​ ​report​ ​unacceptable​ ​because​ ​the​ ​evidence​ ​no​ ​longer​ ​remains​
​trustworthy.²​​This​​confirms​​that​​forensic​​evidence​​must​​pass​​both​​scientific​​and​​legal​​tests​​to​​be​
​admissible.​

​Chapter​​III.​​Types​​of​​Forensic​​Evidence​​and​​Their​​Use​​in​​Indian​​Courts​

​A.​​Biological​​and​​Medical​​Forensics​

​1.​​DNA​​Profiling​

​ NA​ ​profiling​ ​identifies​ ​a​ ​person​ ​by​ ​analysing​ ​genetic​ ​characteristics​ ​that​ ​are​ ​unique​ ​to​ ​each​
D
​individual.​​Courts​​accept​​DNA​​evidence​​because​​it​​offers​​a​​high​​level​​of​​accuracy,​​but​​only​​when​
​the​ ​sample​ ​collection​ ​and​ ​laboratory​ ​process​ ​are​ ​reliable.​ ​The​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​confirmed​ ​the​
​evidentiary​​strength​​of​​DNA​​in​​Mukesh​​v​​State​​(NCT​​of​​Delhi)​​(the​​Nirbhaya​​case),​​holding​​that​
​DNA​ ​can​ ​be​ ​legally​ ​used​ ​to​ ​establish​ ​identity​ ​when​ ​the​ ​procedure​ ​complies​ ​with​ ​scientific​
​standards.¹​

​2.​​Serological​​Evidence​

​ erology​​examines​​blood​​groups​​and​​other​​biological​​markers.​​These​​tests​​cannot​​prove​​identity​
S
​independently​ ​but​ ​can​ ​exclude​ ​suspects​ ​who​ ​do​ ​not​ ​match​ ​the​ ​biological​ ​sample.​ ​Therefore,​
​serological​​results​​operate​​as​​supportive​​or​​corroborative​​evidence​​rather​​than​​primary​​proof.​

​3.​​Post-Mortem​​Reports​

​ ost-mortem​ ​examinations​ ​determine​ ​the​ ​cause,​ ​manner,​ ​and​ ​probable​ ​time​ ​of​ ​death​ ​based​ ​on​
P
​scientific​​examination​​of​​the​​deceased​​body.​​Courts​​consider​​these​​reports​​reliable​​because​​they​
​are​​prepared​​by​​government​​medical​​officers​​who​​act​​as​​neutral​​experts.​​However,​​post-mortem​
​findings​​are​​accepted​​only​​when​​they​​do​​not​​contradict​​other​​scientific​​proof.​

​4.​​Medico-Legal​​Certificates​​(MLCs)​

​ LCs​ ​document​ ​injuries​ ​observed​ ​by​ ​medical​ ​professionals​​in​​cases​​involving​​assaults,​​sexual​

M
​offences,​​or​​accidents.​​Since​​these​​certificates​​are​​based​​on​​medical​​observation​​and​​issued​​in​​an​
​official​ ​capacity,​ ​courts​ ​rely​ ​on​ ​them​ ​to​ ​confirm​ ​the​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​injuries,​ ​weapon​ ​impact,​ ​and​
​seriousness​​of​​bodily​​harm.​
​B.​​Physical​​and​​Trace​​Forensics​

​1.​​Fingerprint​​Evidence​

​ ingerprint​ ​analysis​ ​remains​ ​a​ ​trusted​ ​method​ ​of​ ​identification​ ​because​ ​fingerprints​​are​​unique​
F
​and​​consistent​​throughout​​a​​person’s​​lifetime.​​Courts​​value​​fingerprints​​when​​the​​collection​​and​
​comparison​​are​​scientifically​​carried​​out​​by​​trained​​examiners.​

​2.​​Trace​​Material​​Analysis​

​ race​ ​forensics​ ​involve​ ​the​ ​examination​ ​of​ ​microscopic​ ​materials​ ​such​ ​as​​fibers,​​soil​​particles,​
T
​paint​ ​residues,​ ​or​ ​glass​ ​fragments.​ ​These​ ​materials​ ​help​ ​link​ ​an​ ​accused​ ​person​ ​to​ ​a​​particular​
​location​ ​or​ ​object,​ ​but​ ​must​ ​be​ ​supported​ ​by​ ​proper​ ​laboratory​ ​comparison​ ​before​ ​courts​ ​treat​
​them​​as​​reliable.​

​C.​​Digital​​Forensics​

​1.​​Electronic​​Data​​Examination​

​ igital​ ​forensics​ ​recovers,​ ​analyses,​ ​and​ ​interprets​ ​electronic​ ​data​ ​such​ ​as​ ​messages,​​browsing​
D
​activity,​​CCTV​​recordings,​​and​​metadata.​​The​​admissibility​​of​​this​​data​​depends​​on​​certification​
​under​ ​Section​ ​63​ ​of​ ​the​ ​BSA​ ​2023​ ​and​ ​the​ ​principle​ ​laid​ ​down​ ​in​ ​Arjun​ ​Panditrao​ ​Khotkar​​v​
​Kailash​​Kushanrao​​Gorantyal​​,​​which​​requires​​a​​certificate​​to​​prove​​authenticity.²​

​2.​​Cybercrime-Related​​Evidence​

I​ n​ ​cybercrime​ ​investigations,​ ​digital​ ​forensics​ ​helps​ ​track​ ​unauthorised​ ​access,​ ​financial​ ​fraud,​
​hacking,​ ​and​ ​other​ ​offences​ ​committed​ ​electronically.​ ​Such​ ​evidence​ ​is​ ​legally​ ​admitted​ ​only​
​after​​proving​​that​​data​​has​​not​​been​​altered​​or​​tampered​​with.​

​D.​​Toxicology​​and​​Chemical​​Forensics​

​1.​​Drug​​and​​Poison​​Detection​

​ oxicological​ ​reports​ ​determine​ ​the​ ​presence​ ​of​ ​drugs,​ ​alcohol,​ ​poisons,​ ​or​ ​chemicals​ ​in​ ​the​
T
​body.​ ​Courts​ ​rely​ ​on​ ​these​ ​reports​ ​especially​ ​in​ ​NDPS​ ​prosecutions,​ ​where​ ​laboratory​
​confirmation​ ​is​ ​mandatory​ ​before​ ​conviction.​ ​Toxicology​ ​provides​ ​legally​ ​significant​ ​evidence​
​only​​when​​samples​​are​​properly​​seized,​​sealed,​​and​​analysed.​
​2.​​Chemical​​Interaction​​Analysis​

​ part​ ​from​ ​detecting​ ​substances,​ ​toxicology​ ​also​ ​studies​ ​the​ ​effect​ ​of​​chemicals​​on​​the​​human​
A
​body​ ​to​ ​determine​ ​whether​ ​death​ ​or​ ​injury​ ​occurred​ ​due​ ​to​ ​poisoning,​ ​overdose,​ ​or​ ​chemical​
​exposure.​ ​Courts​ ​accept​ ​these​ ​opinions​ ​when​ ​they​ ​are​ ​linked​ ​to​ ​a​ ​verified​ ​medical​ ​and​
​investigative​​background.​

​E.​​Psychological​​and​​Behavioural​​Forensics​

​1.​​Behavioural​​Profiling​

​ rofiling​ ​examines​ ​behavioural​ ​patterns​ ​to​ ​infer​ ​characteristics​ ​of​ ​offenders.​ ​Courts​ ​treat​
P
​profiling​​only​​as​​a​​supplementary​​tool​​to​​understand​​criminal​​conduct;​​it​​cannot​​stand​​as​​primary​
​evidence.​

​2.​​Deception​​Detection​​Tests​

​ echniques​ ​like​ ​narcoanalysis,​ ​polygraph​ ​tests,​ ​and​ ​brain-mapping​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​administered​
T
​without​ ​consent.​ ​The​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Selvi​ ​v​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Karnataka​ ​held​ ​that​ ​involuntary​
​deception​ ​detection​ ​violates​ ​the​ ​right​ ​against​ ​self-incrimination​​under​​Article​​20(3).³​​Voluntary​
​tests​​may​​be​​used​​only​​as​​supportive​​evidence.​

​F.​​Ballistic​​Forensics​

​Firearm​​and​​Projectile​​Analysis​

​ allistic​​examination​​studies​​firearms,​​bullet​​trajectory,​​firing​​distance,​​and​​weapon​​type.​​It​​helps​
B
​reconstruct​​how​​a​​weapon​​was​​used​​in​​an​​offence.​​In​​Manu​​Sharma​​v​​State​​(NCT​​of​​Delhi)​​(the​
​Jessica​ ​Lal​ ​case),​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​relied​ ​on​ ​ballistic​ ​evidence​ ​to​ ​validate​ ​the​ ​events​
​surrounding​​the​​shooting.⁴​

​Chapter​​IV.​​Foundational​​Requirements​​of​​Admissibility​

I​ ndian​ ​law​ ​applies​ ​four​ ​basic​ ​standards​ ​for​ ​the​ ​admissibility​ ​of​ ​forensic​ ​evidence:​ ​relevance,​
​legality,​ ​reliability,​ ​and​ ​credibility.​ ​Evidence​ ​is​ ​relevant​ ​only​ ​if​ ​it​ ​logically​​connects​​to​​facts​​in​
​dispute.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​legal​ ​only​ ​when​ ​collected​ ​and​ ​preserved​ ​according​ ​to​ ​recognised​ ​procedure.​​It​​is​
​reliable​​when​​based​​on​​scientific​​principles​​that​​are​​accepted​​globally.​​Lastly,​​it​​is​​credible​​only​
​when​ ​presented​ ​by​ ​a​ ​competent,​ ​unbiased​​expert​​whose​​methods​​are​​transparent​​and​​subject​​to​
​scrutiny.​​These​​standards​​ensure​​that​​courts​​do​​not​​rely​​blindly​​on​​scientific​​claims​​but​​evaluate​
​them​​through​​judicial​​reasoning.​
​Chapter​​V.​​Supreme​​Court​​Judgments​​on​​Admissibility​​of​​Forensic​​Evidence​

​A.​​Digital​​Evidence​

I​ n​ ​Arjun​ ​Panditrao​ ​Khotkar​ ​v​ ​Kailash​ ​Kushanrao​ ​Gorantyal​​,​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​held​ ​that​
​electronic​ ​evidence​ ​such​ ​as​ ​CCTV​ ​footage​ ​or​ ​mobile​ ​data​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​admitted​ ​without​ ​a​
​certificate​ ​to​ ​prove​ ​that​ ​the​ ​information​ ​is​ ​genuine​ ​and​ ​has​ ​not​ ​been​ ​altered.¹​ ​This​ ​decision​
​protects​​courts​​from​​relying​​on​​manipulated​​digital​​records.​

​B.​​DNA​​Evidence​

I​ n​​the​​Nirbhaya​​case,​​Mukesh​​v​​State​​(NCT​​of​​Delhi)​​,​​DNA​​collected​​from​​the​​victim​​and​​crime​
​scene​ ​matched​ ​samples​ ​taken​ ​from​ ​the​ ​accused.²​ ​The​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​accepted​ ​this​ ​evidence​
​because​​it​​was​​collected​​and​​analysed​​following​​proper​​scientific​​procedures.​

​C.​​Toxicological​​Reports​

I​ n​ ​narcotics​ ​cases,​ ​the​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​in​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India​ ​v​ ​Bal​ ​Mukund​ ​held​ ​that​ ​chemical​
​analysis​ ​reports​ ​will​ ​not​ ​be​ ​accepted​ ​when​ ​seized​ ​samples​ ​are​ ​not​ ​sealed​ ​or​ ​stored​ ​properly.³​
​Although​​the​​substance​​tested​​positive​​for​​drugs,​​the​​Court​​refused​​to​​rely​​on​​it​​due​​to​​procedural​
​lapses.​

​D.​​Psychological​​Tests​

I​ n​ ​Selvi​ ​v​ ​State​ ​of​ ​Karnataka​​,​ ​the​ ​Court​ ​held​ ​that​ ​narcoanalysis,​ ​polygraph​ ​tests,​ ​and​ ​similar​
​techniques​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​forced​ ​on​ ​accused​ ​persons,​ ​as​ ​they​ ​violate​ ​the​ ​right​ ​against​
​self-incrimination​ ​under​ ​Article​ ​20(3).⁴​ ​The​ ​Court​ ​clarified​ ​that​ ​such​ ​tests​ ​can​ ​be​ ​used​ ​only​​if​
​voluntarily​​consented​​to.​

​E.​​Ballistic​​Evidence​

I​ n​ ​the​ ​Jessica​ ​Lal​ ​case,​ ​Manu​ ​Sharma​ ​v​ ​State​ ​(NCT​ ​of​​Delhi)​​,​​ballistic​​examination​​linked​​the​
​firearm​ ​recovered​ ​from​ ​the​ ​accused​ ​to​ ​the​ ​bullet​ ​that​ ​killed​ ​the​ ​victim.⁵​ ​The​ ​Court​ ​accepted​
​ballistic​​evidence​​after​​confirming​​the​​scientific​​method​​of​​comparison.​
​Chapter​​VI.​​Challenges​​in​​the​​Use​​of​​Forensic​​Evidence​​in​​India​

​A.​​Inadequate​​Laboratory​​Facilities​

I​ ndia​​still​​faces​​a​​shortage​​of​​modern​​forensic​​infrastructure.​​As​​of​​December​​2024,​​the​​Ministry​
​of​ ​Home​ ​Affairs​ ​reported​ ​that​ ​117​ ​forensic​ ​laboratories​ ​are​ ​connected​ ​through​ ​the​ ​national​
​e-Forensics​ ​platform,​ ​but​ ​the​ ​number​ ​of​ ​laboratories​ ​remains​ ​insufficient​ ​for​ ​rising​ ​criminal​
​caseloads.​

​A.​​Inadequate​​Laboratory​​Facilities​

I​ ndia​ ​still​ ​faces​ ​a​ ​shortage​ ​of​ ​modern​ ​forensic​​infrastructure.​ ​A​​Question–Answer​​reply​​in​​the​

​Lok​ ​Sabha​ ​(Q.​ ​No.​ ​3452​​)​ ​on​ ​17​ ​December​ ​2024​ ​confirms​ ​that​ ​there​ ​are​ ​only​ ​seven​ ​Central​
​Forensic​​Science​​Laboratories​​(CFSLs)​​in​​the​​country​​under​​the​​Directorate​​of​​Forensic​​Science​
​Services.​​The​​same​​reply​​states​​that​​there​​are​​also​​32​​State​​Forensic​​Science​​Laboratories​​and​​97​
​Regional​​Forensic​​Science​​Laboratories​​in​​the​​country.​

​ ince​ ​“Police”​ ​and​ ​“Public​ ​Order”​ ​fall​ ​under​ ​the​ ​State​ ​List​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Seventh​ ​Schedule​ ​of​ ​the​
S
​Constitution,​ ​the​ ​responsibility​ ​to​ ​maintain​ ​law​ ​and​ ​order,​ ​investigate​ ​offences,​ ​support​
​prosecution,​ ​and​ ​provide​ ​forensic​ ​services​ ​rests​ ​primarily​ ​with​ ​the​ ​respective​ ​State​ ​or​ ​Union​
​Territory.​

​ he​ ​Government​ ​of​ ​India​ ​has​ ​therefore​ ​sanctioned​ ​the​ ​“National​ ​Forensic​ ​Infrastructure​
T
​Enhancement​ ​Scheme”​ ​with​ ​a​​total​​outlay​​of​​₹2,254.43​​crore​​to​​expand​​forensic​​facilities​​from​
​2024–25​​to​​2028–29.​
​B.​​Faulty​​Chain​​of​​Custody​

I​ mproper​ ​sealing,​ ​documentation​ ​and​ ​storage​ ​of​ ​samples​ ​continue​ ​to​ ​weaken​ ​forensic​ ​results.​
​Courts​ ​often​ ​reject​ ​otherwise​ ​accurate​ ​scientific​​findings​​if​​the​​chain​​of​​custody​​is​​broken.​​The​
​problem​​mostly​​arises​​due​​to​​overburdened​​laboratories​​and​​understaffed​​departments,​​leading​​to​
​errors​​during​​collection​​and​​transfer​​of​​evidence.​

​C.​​Lack​​of​​Training​​and​​Staffing​​Shortages​

​ any​​investigating​​officers​​lack​​specialised​​training​​in​​forensic​​handling.​​Even​​laboratories​​face​
M
​staff​ ​shortages.​ ​A​ ​2024​ ​Parliamentary​ ​reply​ ​reported​ ​that​ ​seven​ ​Central​ ​Forensic​ ​Science​
​Laboratories​ ​had​ ​123​ ​vacant​ ​posts​ ​across​ ​disciplines​ ​dealing​ ​with​ ​forensic​ ​science.⁽³⁾​ ​These​
​vacancies​​slow​​down​​scientific​​examinations​​and​​lead​​to​​delayed​​forensic​​reports.​

​D.​​Backlog​​in​​Reporting​

​ uge​ ​pendency​ ​in​ ​forensic​ ​testing​ ​severely​ ​affects​ ​timely​ ​adjudication.​ ​In​ ​April​ ​2025,​ ​Delhi’s​
H
​Forensic​ ​Science​ ​Laboratory​ ​reported​ ​more​ ​than​ ​20,000​ ​pending​ ​reports,​ ​causing​ ​substantial​
​delays​ ​in​ ​criminal​ ​proceedings.⁽⁴⁾​ ​In​ ​Kerala​ ​alone,​ ​three​ ​major​ ​forensic​ ​laboratories​
​(Thiruvananthapuram,​ ​Ernakulam,​ ​Kozhikode)​ ​recorded​ ​62,558​ ​unresolved​ ​cases​ ​as​ ​of​ ​March​
​2024,​​largely​​in​​toxicology​​and​​narcotics.⁽⁵⁾​​These​​numbers​​show​​that​​forensic​​science​​delays​​are​
​not​​region-specific​​but​​a​​nationwide​​issue.​

​Chapter​​VII.​​Reforms​​and​​Recommendations​

​A.​​Strengthening​​Forensic​​Infrastructure​

I​ ndia​​needs​​stronger​​forensic​​infrastructure​​to​​improve​​the​​quality​​and​​admissibility​​of​​scientific​
​evidence.​

​ he​​Directorate​​of​​Forensic​​Science​​Services​​(DFSS)​​in​​its​​Scientific​​Performance​​Audit​​Report​
T
​(2023)​ ​highlighted​ ​that​ ​many​ ​laboratories​ ​lack​ ​modern​ ​facilities​ ​and​ ​specialised​ ​divisions​
​required​​for​​advanced​​examinations.​

​ he​​Government​​of​​India​​approved​​the​​“National​​Forensic​​Infrastructure​​Enhancement​​Scheme”​
T
​in​ ​June​ ​2024​ ​with​ ​a​ ​financial​ ​outlay​ ​of​ ​₹2,254.43​ ​crore​ ​to​ ​expand​ ​DNA,​ ​cyber-forensic,​ ​and​
​toxicology​​laboratories​​over​​the​​next​​five​​years.¹​​However,​​infrastructure​​gaps​​remain,​​especially​
​in​​States​​with​​heavy​​caseloads.​
​B.​​Standardising​​Chain-of-Custody​​Procedures​

​ ​​uniform​​national​​chain-of-custody​​protocol​​is​​required​​to​​ensure​​that​​evidence​​remains​​sealed,​
A
​traceable,​ ​and​ ​scientifically​ ​secure.​ ​Several​ ​government​ ​committees,​ ​including​ ​the​ ​Ministry​ ​of​
​Home​ ​Affairs’​ ​Committee​ ​on​ ​Reforms​ ​of​ ​Criminal​ ​Justice​ ​System,​ ​emphasised​ ​that​ ​improper​
​sealing​ ​and​ ​poor​ ​documentation​ ​remain​ ​major​ ​causes​ ​of​ ​weak​ ​forensic​ ​evidence.​​Standardised​
​digital​​tracking​​and​​tamper-proof​​sealing​​would​​improve​​evidentiary​​reliability.​

​C.​​Improving​​Digital​​Forensic​​Practices​

​ igital​​evidence​​must​​be​​extracted​​and​​certified​​by​​trained​​personnel​​to​​meet​​the​​requirements​​of​
D
​Section​ ​63​ ​of​​the​​BSA​​2023.​​The​​Scientific​​Performance​​Audit​​Report​​(2023)​​found​​that​​many​
​cyber-forensic​ ​units​ ​lacked​ ​adequately​ ​trained​ ​staff​ ​to​ ​handle​ ​electronic​ ​data.​ ​Training​ ​and​
​recruitment​​in​​digital​​forensics​​are​​therefore​​essential​​for​​admissibility.​

​D.​​Regulating​​Expert​​Qualification​​and​​Accreditation​

​ ​ ​national​ ​regulatory​ ​system​ ​is​ ​required​ ​to​ ​certify​ ​forensic​ ​experts​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​credibility​ ​and​
A
​independence.​​The​​National​​Human​​Rights​​Commission​​in​​its​​2023​​report​​Forensic​​Science​​and​
​Human​ ​Rights​ ​recommended​ ​that​ ​expert​ ​testimony​ ​should​ ​come​ ​only​ ​from​ ​accredited​ ​and​
​professionally​​trained​​experts.​​Creating​​uniform​​qualification​​standards​​would​​strengthen​​judicial​
​confidence.​

​E.​​Increasing​​Staffing​​to​​Reduce​​Forensic​​Backlogs​

​ arge​​vacancies​​in​​forensic​​laboratories​​must​​be​​filled​​to​​reduce​​delays​​in​​toxicology,​​DNA,​​and​
L
​digital​ ​investigations.​ ​A​ ​Question–Answer​ ​reply​ ​in​ ​the​ ​Lok​ ​Sabha​ ​(Q.​ ​No.​ ​3452​​)​ ​on​ ​17​
​December​ ​2024​ ​confirms​ ​that​ ​there​ ​are​ ​only​ ​seven​ ​Central​ ​Forensic​ ​Science​ ​Laboratories​
​(CFSLs)​​in​​the​​country​​under​​the​​Directorate​​of​​Forensic​​Science​​Services.​​The​​same​​reply​​states​
​that​ ​there​ ​are​ ​also​ ​32​ ​State​ ​Forensic​ ​Science​ ​Laboratories​ ​and​ ​97​ ​Regional​ ​Forensic​ ​Science​
​Laboratories​​in​​the​​country.​

​ hus,​ ​Parliamentary​ ​Question-Answer​ ​reply​ ​in​ ​December​ ​2024​ ​showed​ ​that​ ​shortages​ ​persist​
T
​across​​forensic​​laboratories​​in​​India,​​affecting​​the​​timely​​completion​​of​​reports.​​Filling​​vacancies​
​would​​reduce​​case​​pendency​​and​​support​​faster​​trials.​

​F.​​Ethical​​Use​​of​​Psychological​​Forensics​

​ arcoanalysis​​and​​polygraph​​tests​​must​​be​​used​​only​​with​​voluntary​​consent,​​in​​accordance​​with​
N
​Selvi​​v​​State​​of​​Karnataka​​.​​The​​NHRC​​(2023)​​has​​cautioned​​that​​coercive​​psychological​​testing​
​can​​undermine​​personal​​liberty​​and​​should​​be​​used​​only​​as​​supportive​​evidence.​
​Chapter​​VIII.​​Conclusion​

​ orensic​ ​science​ ​gives​ ​judges​ ​something​ ​eyewitnesses​ ​cannot​ ​—​ ​a​ ​neutral​​scientific​​voice.​
F
​When​​collected​​lawfully,​​preserved​​carefully,​​and​​analysed​​by​​trained​​experts,​​forensic​​evidence​
​transforms​ ​investigations​ ​from​ ​guesswork​ ​into​ ​grounded​ ​fact.​ ​Courts​ ​increasingly​ ​depend​ ​on​
​scientific​ ​findings​ ​because​ ​they​ ​provide​ ​objective​ ​information​ ​that​ ​is​ ​not​ ​influenced​ ​by​ ​fear,​
​memory,​​or​​personal​​interest.​

​ et​​the​​system​​can​​only​​be​​as​​strong​​as​​the​​laboratories,​​procedures,​​and​​people​​who​​support​​it.​
Y
​India’s​​growing​​dependence​​on​​DNA​​profiling,​​digital​​forensics,​​toxicology,​​and​​ballistic​​science​
​demands​​modern​​laboratories,​​strict​​chain-of-custody​​rules,​​and​​highly​​trained​​investigators.​

​ ​​stronger​​forensic​​framework​​does​​not​​just​​assist​​the​​courts​​—​​it​​strengthens​​public​​trust,​
A
​protects​​the​​innocent,​​and​​ensures​​that​​justice​​rests​​on​​proof,​​not​​probability.​