EVIDENCE LAW
RESEARCH PAPER
ADMISSIBILITY OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE IN INDIAN COURT
SUBMITTED BY: SUBMITTED TO:
JYOTI MAURYA MR. SHUBHAM SHRIVASTAVA
ROLL NO.: 866 ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, LAW
SEMESTER: V ‘A’
NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW,
RANCHI
I. INTRODUCTION
In ancient Rome, legal cases were pleaded at public meeting or ‘forum’. These forums or public
places were known as ‘forensis’, from which the word forensic is derived. Forensic science is
defined as the application of scientific knowledge in the field of law.
Forensic evidence is a fundamental part of psychological assessment. Forensic experts assume
a significant function in the society in helping the legal executive in many confounded cases.
In India, forensic experts’ work is embraced, for the most part, by the customary specialists.1
The role of forensic science in the sphere of law cannot be denied. Scientific knowledge and
techniques help to ensure justice and equity one of the essential features of the law, this is on
the grounds that there isn't a lot of space for inclination or discrimination while utilizing
scientific procedures and techniques.
In the legal world testimony based on scientific evaluation is generally utilized for both
convicting and absolving suspects. Accordingly, in the past years a number of forensic labs
have been surfaced across the globe. Furthermore, Special Acts have been passed to upgrade
the role of scientific acquaintance in the US, Canada and Australia. This guarantees more
noteworthy sureness in the discovery of wrongs, and thus, insure speedy justice. Such Acts
place far-fetched accentuation on ideal and top-notch crime.
Since ages, Indian judicial system recon the evidentiary value of forensic methods such as
fingerprints, post-mortem reports, DNA test and recent development in law encouraged the use
of some highly developed scientific means like narco-analysis, lie detector test etc.
II. FORENSIC EXPERTS
Present day forensic science has several branches like pathology, psychology, toxicology,
odontology and many more. The term forensic experts include person acquainted with
scientific and technical knowledge.
Section 452 of the Indian Evidence Act makes opinion of person expertise in field such as
science, art, foreign law relevant and further defines expert witness. Expert witness under
1
Himanshu Setia, Evidentiary Value of Forensic Reports in Indian Courts, RESEARCH JOURNAL OF
FORENSIC SCIENCES, Vol. 4(6), 2016.
2
The Indian Evidence Act (Act no. 1 of 1872), s, 45.
1|Page
section 45 is defined as a person who acquired special knowledge, skill or experience in the
field of science, art, trade or profession and such knowledge which may be acquired by practice,
observation or studies.3 Further, in Bal Krishna Das Agrawal v. Radha Devi and Others4, court
distinguished between expert witness and ordinary witness as the expert is a person who by
training and experience has acquired the ability to express an opinion but such quality is absent
in ordinary witness. Therefore, from the above judgement it is clear that the evidence by any
witness is admissible if his competency as an expert is proved in the court of law.
Moreover, in Baldeo Raj v. Urmila Kumari,5 the apex court reversed the decision of High court
and maintained that any person may not have specialization in the field but, her evidence is
admissible even if she has acquired a special experience therein. The medical experts should
not be anticipated to have knowledge about legal definition.6
Section 2937 of Crpc, further, states that any report by government scientific expert may be
used as an evidence in any trial, inquiry or other proceedings but it must be given orally along
with the report.8 Any report or testimony by any government scientific expert mentioned under
section 293(4) is a relevant evidence under section 45.
From the above discussion it is clear that testimony of an expert is admissible in court if it is
proved that the expert opinion is necessary to decide the case, the witness in question is an
expert and the expert is a truthful witness. However, in a case where the facts and circumstance
are enough to form court’s opinion and judgment, expert opinion is not necessary. In L.C.
Goyal v. Mrs. Suresh Joshi9, court found that where circumstantial evidences are effective
enough to derive concrete conclusion, there is no need of expert report.
“Opinions of experts. —When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art,
or as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons especially skilled
in such foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] [or finger impressions] are
relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.”
3
Mahmood v. UP, AIR 1976 SC 69.
4
AIR 1989 All. 133.
5
AIR 1979 SC 879.
6
Durand Dirdier v. Chief Secretary of Union territory, Goa, AIR 1989 SC 1966.
7
Code of Criminal Procedure (Act no. 2 of 1974), s. 293.
“Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section
applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of
any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this
Code”.
8
Ahmedabad Municipality v. Shantilal, AIR 1961 Guj. 196.
9
AIR 1999 SC 2222.
2|Page
III. FORENSIC SCIENCE AND LEGAL SCENARIO IN INDIA
The application of forensic science in any trial does not come without any limitation. Questions
such as how far such reports are supported by the legal authority if these techniques help decide
any case, do forensic reports have any evidentiary significance, have challenged the
constitutional validity of forensic evidence.
III.I. FORENSIC SCIENCE VIS-À-VIS CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
“Right to the presumption of innocence” is one of the pillars of criminal jurisprudence which
prevent a person from unjustifiable conviction before his guilt is proved in the court of law.
Right to the presumption of innocence has been recognised by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights under article 1110, and the same has been incorporated in the constitution of
India under article 2011 which specifically states that no person can be compelled to give
incriminating evidence.
Whether forensic reports are violative of art. 20 have been a topic of debate since ages.
However, in The State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Ogadh and Ors.12, court opined that the phrase
‘to be witness’ under art. 20 is limited to the accused oral and written statement while
conveying knowledge of relevant facts. While on the other hand giving thumb impression,
blood semen etc. are mere production of material evidence whether documentary or otherwise
would not be covered under the article.
III.II. EXAMINATION UNDER CRPC
Section 5313 of the Crpc specify that on the basis of reasonable grounds and reasoning any
person can be subjected to medical examination upon arrest. It gives power to a police officer
not below rank of sub inspector to appoint a registered medical practitioner to examine, even
by force, arrested person if such examination is necessary to ascertain the facts and afford
evidence. 2005 Amendment to Crpc inserts an explanation to section 53 which specify that
examination include the examination of blood, blood stains, semen, swabs, sputum and sweat,
hair samples and finger nail clippings by the use of modern and scientific techniques including
DNA profiling and such other tests which the registered medical practitioner thinks necessary
10
UN General Assembly, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 11.
11
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 20.
12
1961 AIR 1808.
13
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act no. 02 of 1973), s. 53.
3|Page
in a particular case, the amendment included 53A14 which directs the police to use reasonable
force to examine a rape accused if such examination is necessary to obtain evidences.
In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Inapuri Padma,15 the court held that the police need not obtain
permission of court to assume narco-analysis test, but in case where accused refused to undergo
such examination, police are required to obtain court’ permission.
However, examination of accused under section 53, 53A and 54 includes only physical
examination and not testimonial compulsion such as Narco-Analysis Test which is violative of
Article 20. Distinction between testimonial and physical act has been made out in 41st Report
of the Law Commission of India16.
Decision of the Supreme Court in Selvi v. State of Karnatka17, remark that the amendment 2005
to Crpc should be construed with reasonable distinction between the physical examination and
testimonial examination. Subjecting a person to force to undergo impugned technique such as
narco-analysis test or lie detector test is violative of due process. Section 53, 53A, and 54 in
now way can be construed to mean unjustifiable intrusion into mental privacy in the shadow
of ejusdem generis. Any such action will lead to ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment’ and
in conflict with right to fair trial. However, any material discovered as the result of voluntary
examination is admissible in the court of law under section 2718 of the evidence Act.
Guidelines of The National Human Rights Commission had published `Guidelines for the
Administration of Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Test) on an Accused' in 2000 were referred to
conduct Narco-Analysis test:
(i) Consent should be one of the requisites of Lie Detector Test.
(ii) The accused should be offered access to lawyer. And any physical, emotional, and
legal implication should be explained to him by his lawyer or police.
(iii) The consent should be given in-front of the magistrate.
(iv) Duly representation of lawyer is necessary during the examination of the accused
before magistrate.
(v) The person should be informed that the statement made shall not be a ‘confessional
statement’ but a statement made before police.
14
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act no. 02 of 1973), s. 53A.
15
2008 Cr LJ 3992 (AP).
16
See 41st Report of the Law Commission of India, Vol. I (September 1969), Para 5.1 at p. 37
17
(2010) 7 SCC 263.
18
The Indian Evidence Act (Act no. 1 of 1872), s, 27.
4|Page
(vi) Consideration of factors relating to the detention (length and nature of the detention)
should be made by the Magistrate
(vii) Recording of the Lie Detector Test should be conducted by an independent agency
and in-front of a lawyer.
(viii) A report of complete narration (medical and factual) of the information received is
must.
III.III. SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION UNDER CPC
Under Order XXVI Rule 10A19 of CPC states that where any question arising in a suit involves
any scientific investigation which cannot, in the opinion of the court, be conveniently
conducted before the court, the court may, if it thinks it necessary or expedient in the interest
of the justice, can issue a commission to such person as it thinks fit, directing him to inquire
into such question and report thereon to the court.
In Padam Sen v State of UP20, court observed the object of local investigation is not to collect
evidence which can be taken in court but to obtain evidence which from its very peculiar nature
can be had only on the spot.
IV. VALUE OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE
Forensic evidences are not conclusive evidence but are corroborative evidences 21 that is it is
necessary to be judged along with other evidences. Therefore, such evidences are not a
substantial piece of evidences. In Bhaskarrao v. State of Maharashtra,22 court acquitted the
accused in the absence of direct evidence and medical evidence was not corroborated by
prosecution.
Evidentiary value of forensic reports is considered to be slight value since the reliability of test
cannot be trusted if the quantity is less or the sample is degraded. In Ram Swaroop and Ors. v.
State of UP,23 it was reckoned that specialist’s evidence can never be beyond reasonable doubt
19
The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Act no. 5 of 1908), O. XXVI, R.10A.
20
AIR 1961 SC 218
21
Batuklal, The Law of Evidence, ed. 23, 2020.
22
2018 (104) ACC 263.
23
AIR 2000 SC 715.
5|Page
on the subject of so far as time-span of wounds are contemplated. Further, it is on the discretion
of the judge to consider the experts opinion. Weightage to be given to expert’s opinion should
be in proportion to soundness of the reason.
An expert is not witness of the fact; his evidence is only of advisory character.24 Examination
of forensic experts is important to consider a report as an evidence. In Perumal Mudaliar v.
South Indian Railway Company Ltd.,25 C.J. Beasley observed that
“The evidence of experts must be given in the ordinary way. Subject to certain exceptions-
those exceptions being amongst others, the certificates of the Imperial Serologist touching the
matter of bloodstains and of the Chemical Examiner, which are made admissible in evidence
by themselves-it is quite obvious that the opinion of an expert must be given orally and that a
report merely or certificate by him cannot possible be evidence. Unless he goes into the witness
box and gives oral evidence.”
IV.I. CONFLICT BETWEEN MEDICAL EVIDENCE AND OCULAR EVIDENCE
Expert evidence has been considered as weak evidence therefore, it cannot be relied upon
without independent corroboration.26 Where there is contradiction in evidence of forensic and
testimony of witness, if the witness is of credible and reliable nature, the testimony of witness
will be preferred over forensic evidence.27 But if the witness is unreliable forensic evidences
are favoured and assumes importance while appreciating evidence.28
Thus, in case of conflict ocular evidences hold greater evidentiary value than forensic
evidences but when the forensic reports make the testimony completely implausible the same
becomes a relevant fact while deciding case.
V. CONCLUSION
The ultimate discretion rests with the court to admit the experts or forensic report or opinion.
It can be inferred that where there was a conflict in expert views, it was held that it is the Court
which is competent to give its own opinion to look at the signatures on the paper. It depends
24
Supra note 21.
25
AIR 1937 Mad. 407.
26
S. Gopal Reddy v. State of A. P., (1996) 4 SCC 596.
27
Malappa Siddappa AlaKamur v. State of Karnataka, AIR 2009 SC 2959.
28
Kapildeo Mandal v. State of Bihar, AIR 2008 SC 533.
6|Page
entirely on that facts and conditions and the judgment of the judiciary and varies accordingly.
There is no clause in the Indian evidence Act, 1872, which specifically specifies that expert
testimony it needs to be corroborated, however, courts usually do not rely entirely on experts’
evidence, unless confirmed by other evidence. This is the reason; the Supreme Court of India
has observed in the plenty of situations that it is particularly dangerous to prosecute a citizen
the foundation of the expert's sole evidence.
It is commonly seen in most cases the courts call upon for the Expert medical opinions. But in
accurate words, it's well decided that medical jurisprudence is not an absolute science, and that
is indeed it is impossible for any medical specialist to tell with accuracy as to when a certain
injury was incurred, then it is. It is only the responsibility of the specialist to give his view.
7|Page
