Role of Forensic Evidence in Securing Convictions: A Critical Evaluation of Indian Practices

However, in India, the use of forensic evidence to secure convictions is complex. Courts increasingly recognize its value, but systemic issues like poor infrastructure, a shortage of trained professionals, slow sample processing, and questions about admissibility often limit its effectiveness. This evaluation looks at how forensic evidence has been used in India’s criminal justice system, the challenges it encounters, and its impact on securing convictions, along with the risks associated with over-reliance and misuse.

Historical Background of Forensic Science in India

Forensic science in India dates back to the colonial era. At that time, the British administration introduced scientific methods to aid criminal investigations. The first use of forensic principles in India involved basic chemical tests for suspected poison cases. This led to the establishment of the first Chemical Examiner’s Laboratory in Madras, now Chennai, in 1849. One early step was the establishment of the Anthropometric Bureau in Bengal in 1892, followed by the Fingerprint Bureau in Calcutta in 1897, marking the early use of fingerprint classification for criminal identification in India. In the early 20th century, chemical examiner laboratories began testing poisons and toxic substances. By 1936, Calcutta had the first scientific lab dedicated to criminal investigation. After independence, forensic science received additional support with the creation of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) in 1956 under the Ministry of Home Affairs. This lab became the main agency for scientifically examining evidence.

Over time, India has improved its forensic infrastructure by establishing several CFSLs, State Forensic Science Laboratories (SFSLs), and specialized units for DNA profiling, cyber forensics, and ballistic analysis. However, the history of forensic science in India also reveals ongoing challenges. Issues like underfunding, a lack of skilled workers, and inconsistent standards continue to hinder the effectiveness and reliability of forensic science in the Indian criminal justice system.

Role of Forensic Science

Forensic science plays a vital role in strengthening the criminal justice system by providing objective scientific evidence that aids in detecting crime, identifying offenders, and ensuring justice. It connects law enforcement agencies and the courts. Forensic science transforms physical clues—such as fingerprints, bloodstains, DNA samples, ballistic materials, and digital footprints—into court-ready evidence. It is essential in criminal investigations, beginning at the crime scene with the collection, preservation, and analysis of physical evidence like fingerprints, bloodstains, and digital traces. Maintaining the chain of custody is crucial for ensuring that evidence is admissible in court. Modern tools such as 3D scanners, Alternate Light Sources, and electronic evidence extraction software help create precise documentation.

Forensic science also assists in identifying and reconstructing events using DNA profiling, fingerprint analysis, dental records, and forensic ballistics. These methods help establish identities, determine causes of death, trace bullet paths, and detect poisons. This can support or challenge witness statements. In court, forensic experts prepare reports and testify according to Sections 45 to 51 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Their evidence is crucial in cases without eyewitnesses, but it must adhere to strict protocols to be accepted. The credibility, training, and neutrality of forensic experts are essential for the reliability of their testimony and for enhancing justice delivery.

Legal Framework Supporting Forensic

The rules for using forensic evidence in India are based on a clear legal framework that aims to balance scientific accuracy with fairness in procedures.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Indian Evidence Act serves as the foundation of evidentiary law. Its provisions explicitly address forensic science. Section 45 recognizes expert opinions in science, handwriting, fingerprint analysis, and other technical fields as facts that can assist the court in making a decision. Section 46 allows courts to consider additional facts that support or contradict expert testimony, ensuring a fair assessment. Together, these sections enable the admission of forensic evidence, such as ballistic reports and DNA analysis, as supporting proof in criminal trials.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)

While the Evidence Act determines what evidence can be admitted, the CrPC outlines the rules for collecting and preserving forensic material. Sections 53 and 53A permit medical examinations of accused individuals, allowing for the collection of bodily samples like blood, semen, hair, and swabs, which are often crucial for forensic tests. Section 164A specifically addresses medical examinations in sexual assault cases and ensures timely, sound evidence collection under judicial supervision. These provisions protect the integrity of forensic material by requiring lawful collection and documentation, strengthening its evidentiary value in court.

Information Technology Act, 2000

With the rise of cybercrime and digital evidence, the Information Technology Act, 2000, plays a key role in the forensic landscape. Section 65B of the Act, when read with the Indian Evidence Act, sets out the requirements for admitting electronic records that include digital forensics, CCTV footage, emails, and other computer-generated data. The Act also defines cybercrimes, grants authorities the power to investigate and preserve digital evidence, and establishes technical standards for authenticity and integrity of electronic records. This creates a solid legal basis for digital forensics in India.

Important Cases

Selvi vs State of Karnataka (2010)

The landmark case of Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) is one of the most significant Supreme Court rulings on the acceptable use of forensic science in criminal investigations. The case centred on the constitutionality of three investigative methods: narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP) tests, when performed without the accused’s consent. The Court concluded that forcing these techniques on individuals violated Article 20(3) of the Constitution, which guarantees the right against self-incrimination, and Article 21, which protects the right to life and personal liberty. The judgment distinguished between physical evidence, such as fingerprints, blood samples, or DNA, which can be lawfully obtained under Sections 53 and 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and testimonial evidence, which cannot be acquired through force or coercion. By banning these intrusive forensic methods without consent, the Court reinforced the idea that scientific evidence must respect constitutional protections and individual rights. Selvi thus marks a key moment in balancing the use of modern forensic tools with individuals’ fundamental rights, setting limits on how far science can aid in criminal justice.

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar (2014)

In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Kumar (2014), the Supreme Court of India underscored the importance of forensic evidence in criminal trials, particularly in cases that rely heavily on circumstantial evidence. The case involved the murder of a young woman, with the prosecution’s argument based on the recovery of blood-stained clothes, the weapon used in the crime, and DNA profiling results linking the accused to the offense.

The Court noted that forensic reports, when prepared by qualified authorities and backed by a proper chain of custody, carry significant evidentiary weight and can be used even without direct eyewitness testimony. The judgment affirmed that scientific methods such as serological tests and DNA analysis are not merely supporting evidence but can be vital in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, provided there is strict adherence to procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards. This case reflects the judiciary’s growing faith in forensic science as a reliable means to uncover truth while calling attention to the need for careful collection, preservation, and documentation to avoid wrongful convictions.

Challenges in Forensic

Forensic science in India faces several systemic challenges that weaken its role in the criminal justice system. Poor infrastructure, including outdated equipment, limited laboratory space, and a lack of specialized facilities, leads to significant backlogs and delays in processing evidence, particularly in rural areas. This issue worsens due to a shortage of skilled workers and inadequate training for both first responders and forensic analysts. These problems increase the risk of evidence contamination and result in inconsistent analysis quality. Delays in forensic reports can slow investigations and trials, which may lead to prolonged detention or premature release of accused individuals. Issues with maintaining the chain of custody also jeopardize the admissibility and credibility of evidence.

Additionally, the absence of consistent standards and accreditation across laboratories results in differing findings and diminishes reliability in court. Addressing these challenges requires investment in modern infrastructure, training programs, quicker reporting systems, secure evidence management, and the creation of a centralized body to standardize procedures and ensure scientific rigor throughout the country.

Reforms and Suggestions

The government should focus on investing in modern forensic science laboratories at the state and district levels. These labs should feature technologies like automated DNA sequencers, 3D crime scene reconstruction tools, and digital forensics platforms. Recruitment of skilled forensic professionals should also include standardized training programs for police officers and first responders to ensure proper evidence handling and preservation at crime scenes.

To minimize delays, laboratories should implement time-bound reporting protocols and digital case management systems that enable real-time tracking of evidence and promote accountability. Establishing mobile forensic units could significantly reduce the time required to collect and transport evidence, especially in rural areas.

Additionally, the chain of custody should be safeguarded with tamper-evident packaging, barcoding, and blockchain-based tracking systems to ensure the integrity and admissibility of evidence. A centralized regulatory authority should be established to oversee accreditation and enforce consistent standard operating procedures. This authority should also conduct regular audits to maintain scientific rigor. Lastly, continuous professional development, peer review processes, and collaboration with international forensic institutions can help keep Indian forensic science in line with global best practices. This approach will enhance its reliability and role in securing just outcomes.

Conclusion

The role of forensic evidence in the Indian criminal justice system is at a crucial turning point. Its ability to provide clear and timely convictions is evident, but ongoing issues undermine its effectiveness. These problems include infrastructure challenges, gaps in the chain of custody, inconsistent standards, and limited scientific knowledge among judges. Courts have correctly taken a cautious approach, requiring more proof and stricter adherence to procedures. However, strong reforms in institutions are also necessary.

We need a coordinated national effort to modernize forensic laboratories, mandate accreditation, train stakeholders, and create independent oversight bodies. It’s also essential to ensure that the collection and use of forensic evidence respect constitutional rights to privacy, dignity, and a fair trial. If we implement these reforms promptly, forensic science can transition from a secondary investigative tool to a vital part of reliable justice. This change would boost conviction rates when guilt is established and enhance public trust in the legal system.