Author: Tushar Khandekar, Maharashtra National Law University, Nagpur
To the Point
Forensic science serves as a decisive element in criminal defence strategies by offering scientific counter-narratives to prosecution claims. It allows the defence to scrutinize the credibility of the evidence, expose procedural lapses, and employ independent experts. While its integration into the Indian legal framework has advanced, inconsistencies in standards, lack of infrastructure, and judicial conservatism limit its effectiveness. The defence must tactically challenge forensic evidence to protect constitutional rights and uphold the principle of a fair trial.
Use of Legal Jargon
Admissibility of Evidence: The legal acceptability of forensic evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Mens rea: The mental element or intent required to constitute a crime.
Chain of Custody: Documentation of the seizure, custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of evidence.
Prima Facie: Evidence that, unless rebutted, is sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
Section 45 & 73, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Recognizes expert testimony and allows courts to direct specimen collection respectively.
Article 20(3), Constitution of India: Protects individuals against self-incrimination.
Cross-examination: A critical process in which defence counsel dissects the prosecution’s forensic witnesses’ statements.
The Proof
Forensic science can make or break a criminal case. In State of Kerala v. Suseela Manu (2021), the court disregarded forensic evidence due to procedural lapses, underscoring the need for reliable collection and preservation. Conversely, in Anil v. State of Maharashtra, DNA profiling led to a conviction in a rape and murder case. Forensic audits have also corrected injustices, such as in the Brandon Mayfield Case (2004), where erroneous fingerprint analysis was overturned by independent experts.
Abstract
This analysis explores how forensic science impacts criminal defence strategies in India. It examines the legal admissibility of forensic evidence, its ability to exonerate the innocent, and the strategic challenges mounted by defence counsels. Despite technological advancements, the utility of forensic science is hindered by insufficient infrastructure, ethical dilemmas, and judicial reluctance. Through landmark cases and doctrinal interpretation, the paper evaluates how forensic science shapes the burden of proof, procedural fairness, and constitutional safeguards within the Indian criminal justice system.
Case Laws
State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad & Others
Held that taking physical samples (like fingerprints) does not violate Article 20(3).
Selvi v. State of Karnataka
Declared that narco-analysis and lie detector tests without consent are unconstitutional.
Anil v. State of Maharashtra
Forensic DNA evidence secured a conviction in a rape-murder case.
Sushil Mandal v. State Represented by CBI
DNA profiling confirmed the identity of a deceased child, resolving a habeas corpus plea.
Pritam Singh v. State of Punjab
Footprint analysis was admissible when corroborated by other evidence.
Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka
Held that digital data must be handled with due process and does not automatically imply guilt.
Keith Harward Case (2016, USA)
Bite-mark evidence was discredited by later DNA tests, leading to exoneration.
Central Park Five Case
Independent DNA evidence overturned wrongful convictions.
Conclusion
Forensic science, when used effectively, strengthens the defence strategy by ensuring that the burden of proof is not unfairly shifted to the accused. However, its success depends on accurate sample collection, expert interpretation, and judicial comprehension of scientific evidence. With staffing shortages, procedural delays, and legal ambiguity, India’s forensic framework is still in its infancy. Judicial training, independent forensic laboratories, and consistent protocols are imperative for safeguarding constitutional rights and delivering justice. The defence bar must adopt a proactive stance, not merely rebutting forensic claims, but also integrating expert science as a core strategy of reasonable doubt.
FAQS
Q1: Can an accused be forced to give DNA or fingerprint samples?
A: No, compelling an accused to testify is barred under Article 20(3), but courts have ruled that physical evidence like DNA and fingerprints do not constitute “testimony.” Hence, they can be lawfully obtained.
Q2: Are forensic reports conclusive in Indian courts?
A: No. Under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, forensic reports are treated as expert opinions. Courts may accept or reject them based on corroborative evidence.
Q3: What happens if forensic evidence is mishandled?
A: Mishandled or contaminated evidence can be declared inadmissible, leading to acquittals or mistrials. Defence counsels often scrutinize the chain of custody for this reason.
Q4: Is narco-analysis legal in India?
A: Only with the consent of the accused. In Selvi v. State of Karnataka, involuntary use was ruled unconstitutional.
Q5: What are the main challenges in forensic science in India?
A: Shortage of trained experts, lack of infrastructure, backlog in forensic labs, and poor integration with investigative procedures.
Q6: Can defence lawyers use independent forensic experts?
A: Absolutely. Independent experts often play a key role in challenging prosecution claims and identifying flaws in forensic reports.
Q7: Is digital forensics legally valid in court?
A: Yes, but only if proper procedures under the Information Technology Act and Indian Evidence Act are followed to ensure the authenticity of electronic records.
