Forensic Science And Evidence In Criminal Trials
ποΈ I. Introduction to Forensic Science in Criminal Trials
Forensic science is the application of scientific methods and techniques to investigate crimes and provide evidence in courts. It has become a cornerstone in criminal trials because it provides objective, scientific evidence that supports or refutes testimonies.
Role in Criminal Trials:
Identification of suspects through DNA, fingerprints, or biometrics
Analysis of firearms, explosives, and ballistics
Detection of poisons, drugs, and toxic substances
Examination of documents, handwriting, and electronic records
Establishing cause and manner of death in medico-legal cases
Relevant Legal Provisions:
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 β Sections 45β51: Expert testimony
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 β Sections 53, 54, 173: Collection and submission of forensic evidence
DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Act, 2019
βοΈ II. Admissibility of Forensic Evidence
Forensic evidence is considered expert evidence under the Evidence Act:
Section 45: Opinion of an expert is relevant when the court needs scientific knowledge.
Sections 46-51: Explains how expert testimony should be produced and recorded.
Principles:
Reliability: Evidence must be scientifically valid and obtained using proper procedures.
Relevance: Must relate to a fact in issue or relevant matter.
Expert Qualification: Expert must be competent and trained in the relevant field.
Preservation: Chain of custody must be maintained to prevent tampering.
π‘ III. Landmark Case Laws
1. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 4 SCC 329
Facts:
Involved DNA testing to prove sexual assault and establish the identity of the accused.
Held:
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of DNA evidence as corroborative.
Court allowed DNA reports as evidence under Section 45 of Evidence Act.
Stress on maintaining proper chain of custody and scientific standards.
Principle Established:
π DNA evidence is reliable and admissible if collected and analyzed according to protocols.
2. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996) 2 SCC 384
Facts:
Custodial death case where forensic post-mortem and ballistic evidence were critical.
Held:
Court relied heavily on forensic expert reports to establish cause of death.
Ballistics and autopsy findings corroborated witness statements.
Principle Established:
π Forensic evidence strengthens prosecution, especially when eyewitness evidence is limited.
3. K. Anbazhagan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2015)
Facts:
Involved digital forensic evidenceβemails and electronic records in a cybercrime case.
Held:
Court admitted electronic records under Section 65B of Evidence Act, with proper certification.
Stress on the authenticity of electronic evidence before it can influence verdicts.
Principle Established:
π Digital forensic evidence is admissible if statutory procedures are strictly followed.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai (2003) 4 SCC 601
Facts:
Medical negligence and forensic expert opinion in determining cause of death.
Held:
Court upheld medical expert testimony as critical in ascertaining causation in criminal cases.
Highlighted need for clear, reasoned opinion from qualified experts.
Principle Established:
π Expert opinion is admissible but not binding; courts can evaluate weight based on methodology.
5. Mukesh v. State for NCT of Delhi (2017) 6 SCC 1
Facts:
Delhi gang rape and murder case; forensic evidence included DNA samples, hair analysis, and post-mortem reports.
Held:
Forensic findings corroborated eyewitness and circumstantial evidence.
Court emphasized timely collection and preservation of forensic samples.
Principle Established:
π Forensic evidence can decisively link accused to crime scene or victim.
6. State of U.P. v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 6 SCC 1
Facts:
Case involving alleged sexual assault; DNA tests were initially questioned.
Held:
Supreme Court held DNA testing is scientifically reliable and can confirm identity, sexual assault, or paternity.
Proper lab standards and chain of custody are essential.
Principle Established:
π Forensic evidence carries significant probative value when scientifically verified.
7. Kehar Singh v. State (1989) 2 SCC 698
Facts:
Assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi; forensic ballistics used to link weapons to accused.
Held:
Ballistics and fingerprint evidence were admissible and crucial for conviction.
Demonstrated forensic science's role in high-profile criminal investigations.
Principle Established:
π Ballistics and fingerprint evidence are central to establishing criminal liability.
𧩠IV. Key Takeaways
| Forensic Method | Use in Trials | Case Illustration |
|---|---|---|
| DNA analysis | Identification, sexual assault, paternity | Tukaram S. Dighole, Mukesh case |
| Ballistics & fingerprints | Linking accused to crime scene | Gurmit Singh, Kehar Singh |
| Medical & post-mortem | Cause of death, injury analysis | Dr. Praful B. Desai |
| Digital forensics | Cybercrime, emails, electronic records | K. Anbazhagan |
| Expert opinion | Scientific interpretation of evidence | Multiple cases above |
Principles for Admissibility:
Must be relevant, reliable, and scientifically valid
Expert must be competent and impartial
Chain of custody must be maintained rigorously
Forensic evidence can corroborate or replace eyewitness testimony
β V. Conclusion
Forensic science has revolutionized criminal trials in India:
Provides objective, scientific support for cases.
Enhances accuracy and credibility of criminal investigations.
Courts increasingly rely on DNA, digital forensics, ballistics, and expert reports.
Proper collection, preservation, and authentication are mandatory for admissibility.
RELATED Blog
0 comments