Forensic Evidence & its Evidentiary Value in a Criminal Trial: Lawyers Advice

Forensic evidence, also known as scientific evidence is information which is derived through scientific methods. With the advent of the industrial and technological age, the combined application of science and technology has changed the forensic identification game. However, some techniques although useful are violative of our fundamental rights. This article seeks to examine the evidentiary value of such forensic evidence in criminal trials.

There are various types of forensic identification techniques which help recovering concealed information in a crime. A few examples of such identification techniques are –
• Polygraphy (also known as the “lie-detector” test),
• Voice Analysis– Where a person can be recognised by analysing the sound of his voice,
• Hypnosis– In this state the person is not asleep, but extremely relaxed, their mind is focused and also increasingly susceptible to suggestion,
• Fingerprinting– Since no two people can have the same fingerprint, this mechanism can be used to identify the accused, especially when fingerprints are left at the crime scene,
• Narco-Analysis– In this process the person is chemically injected (also known as injecting a “truth serum”) and put into a semi-somnolent state and then interrogated,
• Brain Mapping/P300 Test– In this process sensors are attached to the persons head, after which he is interrogated, in order to find out if he is concealing any information,
• DNA Profiling– One of the most widely used methods, which can be used to identify mutilated dead bodies, parentage of a child etc.

Until recently, the Courts had to rely on non-scientific evidences, primarily due to the lack of proper technology. However, a few issues present with such evidences are the eyewitness being biased, frightened in the courtroom thereby intermingling the facts, not observing the entire scenario etc. Hence, forensic evidence can be used in order to convert such suspicion to certainty.

In India, there are various statutes which are related to forensic evidence. Which are as follows-

1. The Constitution of India– Article 20(3) talks about the right against self-incrimination, and Article 21 talks about the right to life. Both these Articles are relevant in this case as well as the accused cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself.
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872– Section 45 of the Act deals with the admissibility of expert evidence, providing an exception to the general rule of evidence. Section 27 of the Act states that when facts are discovered based on the information given by the accused, and as per the requirements mentioned, then the statement of the accused is admissible even if it is incriminating. Section 73 of the Act directs that any person can be asked to give fingerprint samples or DNA examinations.
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973– Section 53 of the Code empowers investigating agencies to take recourse through an efficient, scientific investigation method. Section 53A of the Code specifically includes DNA Testing as well.

As forensic evidence and the techniques present although useful are violative of our fundamental rights, the Courts in India have dealt with their legal validity through innumerable judicial pronouncements. A few of the same are as follows –
• In the landmark case Selvi v. State of Karnataka (AIR 2010 SC 1974), the Supreme Court held that narco-analysis, brain mapping and polygraphs cannot be conducted without the consent of the accused.
• On the other hand, in the case of State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad and Ors (AIR 1961 SC 1808), the Supreme Court held that the provisions of Article 20(3) are not violated when asking a person to provide hair, fingerprints, blood etc. as forensic evidence.
• In Nandini Sathpathy v. P.L. Dani (AIR 1978 SC 1025), the Court held that no person can forcibly extract statements from the accused when they have a right to keep silent. However, the provision under Article 20(3) of the Constitution can be waived by the person himself.
• In Gajraj v. State (NCT) of Delhi (2012(1) R.A.J. 28), it was held that an accused can be convicted based on scientific evidence. The Court stated that while technology is involved in all aspects, scientific techniques should be incorporated into the Indian criminal justice system as well.

The principle of the Indian legal system is based on the assumption “innocent until proven guilty”. While the application of scientific technology to law plays a vital role in criminal investigations, the Courts in India have also kept in mind the greater role of protection of human rights. The aspects of self-incrimination with respect to certain techniques as well as forceful confessions from the accused have been identified and prevented by the Courts in various judicial pronouncements, thereby creating an efficient system for a fair trial in our country.
Authored By: Adv. Anant Sharma & Madhulika Iyer