SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, PUNE (III Semester )
Internal Assessment I – Forensic Science
IMPORTANCE OF BALLISTICS IN FORENSIC
NAME: Ishan Deshmukh
DIVISION: E
PRN: 20010125433
COURSE: BA LL.B. (H)
BATCH: 2020-2025
Introduction
The criminal justice system is comprised of a specific division, including processes, bodies,
and institutions that aim to protect or restore social control mechanisms. In other words, it is
the organized or structured response of society to behaviours and people deemed deviant,
challenging, distressing, intimidating, troublesome, and undesirable.
The police, prosecution, courts, and prisons make up the administration of the criminal justice
system. These four organs play a crucial role in deterring, recognizing, prosecuting,
arbitrating, and punishing offenders in society. An efficient criminal justice system is
essential for ensuring a secure and peaceful society. Indeed, the complete subsistence of an
organized society depends upon a good and effective criminal justice system.
When it comes to the functionaries of the criminal justice system, the most critical role is that
of the Magistrates and courts, as they are responsible for determining the culpability or
innocence of alleged offenders and deciding their punishment. This process involves the
appreciation of facts and evidence and the establishment of the charge to be proved. They are
supported in this process by a dedicated investigative agency, the police, who are assigned
the critical task of detecting and investigating crimes to apprehend alleged offenders and
bring them to justice. Any investigation should be supported by evidence, as truth is
established in a Court of Law only when it has a firm and sound foundation of evidence.
Over the past few decades, technology has played a crucial role in the advancement of
criminal justice. Police departments have adopted various scientific tools and techniques to
detect crimes, reconstruct crime scenes, identify suspects and establish critical links.
Similarly, courts rely on physical evidence obtained through these methods to determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused with greater precision. The integration of technology in
crime investigation has become an important factor in determining the efficiency and
effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
Importance of Forensic Science in Law
"Forenses" means "forum" in Roman, whence "forensic" originated. By definition, forensic
science is rooted in law. Forensic scientists collect, preserve, and analyse evidence for
criminal charges. Hence, forensic science's criminal justice function is clear.
Forensic evidence is crucial to criminal prosecution. Because scientific methods and
processes minimise unfairness and prejudice. So, courts worldwide accept forensic evidence
like DNA profiles. The Chinese invented a fingerprint and palm print analysis forensic
technology (650 A.D.).
Forensic evidence is often used to convict or acquit. During the last few decades, forensic
science labs have proliferated worldwide. The US, Canada, and Australia have passed laws to
aid.
We offer forensic services. This will make illicit conduct easier to detect and boost
convictions. Such atrocities require immediate, expert crime scene management.
Legal Provisions Supporting Criminal Investigation
Forensic science may only be used in certain ways during criminal investigations and court
cases in India. Questions such, "a) To what degree are these strategies legitimate and
sanctioned by any authority?" are at the heart of it. The extent to which certain forensic
techniques aid in solving crimes. How can we convince the forensic experts to give us the
information we need? Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution states that a suspect cannot be
required to testify against himself in a criminal proceeding. Article 20 establishes the
presumption of innocence unless guilt is demonstrated. The accused is protected from the
pain and torture he would otherwise endure throughout the investigation and detention. A
criminal defendant enjoys the presumption of innocence unless proven guilty. Everyone
accused of a criminal act has the right to be believed innocent until proven guilty in an open
trial after getting all the safeguards necessary for his defence, as stated in Article 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 9 " Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution
protects citizens from being coerced to provide incriminating testimony and also guarantees
the right to self-incrimination. Anybody accused of a crime has the protection of Article 20
(3)'s guarantee against self-incriminating testimony. In addition to evidence given in a court
of law, it also protects statements made to investigators or other government agencies. The
right not to be forced into giving evidence against oneself that might be used against one in a
court of law (Article 20 (3))10 applies only in cases where coercion is used. This protection
was put in place to ensure that nobody could be coerced into providing information that may
lead to their conviction. According to Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court may
require anybody, including the accused, to submit to fingerprinting. Finally, the Supreme
Court found that fingerprinting requirements do not violate the individual's right to privacy as
established in Art. 20(3)12. Whether or not forensic evidence violates Article 20(3) of the
Indian Constitution is a hotly debated topic. In The State of Bombay v. KathiKaluOghad&
Others,13 the court ruled that an accused's submission of physical evidence (such as a thumb
impression, signature sample, blood, hair, semen, etc.) did not constitute "giving a witness"
within the meaning of Article. Hence, the accused cannot object to DNA testing during the
investigation or trial. In another key judgement, Ramchandra Reddy and Others v. State of
Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court upheld the legality of using P300 or brain
fingerprinting, liedetector tests, and truth serum or narco analysis (14). The court upheld an
extraordinary court order that would allow the SIT to use scientific methods to investigate the
suspects in the fake stamp paper conspiracy, including the main suspect, Abdul Karim Telgi.
The verdict reached by the jury also upheld the validity of evidence gathered by truth serum.
In Dinesh Dalmia v. State15, which was heard by the Madras High Court in 2006, the court
ruled that subjecting an accused person to a narco-analysis did not amount to the use of
coerced evidence. Nevertheless, in a subsequent decision, Selvi & Ors v. State of
Karnataka & Anr16, the Supreme Court questioned the legitimacy of the involuntary
administration of various scientific procedures for the aim of strengthening investigation
efforts in criminal cases. The Supreme Court ruled in the aforementioned case that mandatory
polygraph or brain mapping testing was unconstitutional due to their lack of reliability. 17 To
facilitate the collection of a wider range of medical information from suspects upon their
arrest, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was amended in 2005. Police may take a
suspect to the hospital for an examination after making an arrest if they have "reasonable
grounds for suspecting" that doing so may provide evidence of a crime, as stated in Section
53 of the Criminal Procedure Act of 1976. The extent of this assessment was expanded in
2005 to include "the examination of blood, blood-stains, semen, swabs in case of sexual
offences, 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 in a particular case. 18” The 2005 Amendment that
inserted the provision, on the other hand, limited its application to rape-related instances only.
Furthermore, excluded from this provision are complaint cases and other procedures
involving the collection of blood, semen, etc. for use in criminal prosecution19. In a similar
vein, Section 164A of the Code of Criminal Procedure from 1973 mandates that a woman
who has been accused of rape have a medical examination within twenty-four hours, which
must include a DNA analysis. Both laws make it possible for any doctor who follows the
requirements of Section 2(h) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 to collect DNA
samples. It's unclear if all doctors have the skills necessary to collect and store DNA samples.
It's common knowledge that collecting and storing DNA samples correctly is crucial to the
evidence's reliability. The sample can get contaminated by even the smallest of errors, and a
contaminated sample is useless. Under the Indian Evidence Act of 1872, a forensic report can
be used as the "belief" of an expert witness. An expert is someone who has reached a high
level of proficiency in his or her chosen subject by years of study, research, and experience.
Someone who has studied and worked in a certain subject in depth and can thus be relied
upon to give an informed view on a topic in which he is requested to weigh in20. To allow
the court, which is not an expert, to develop its own view based on its own assessment of the
material, the expert's primary duty is to present the court with all the facts and arguments that
led him to a given conclusion. The reliability of an expert witness is heavily dependent on the
reliability of the findings obtained and the reliability of the procedures, materials, and
resources employed to get them. The court, however, is not required to accept the expert's
findings as fact and may instead choose to rely on other evidence. The National Draft Policy
on Criminal Justice Reforms recommends updating the Indian Evidence Act to allow for
scientific evidence to be admitted as "substantive evidence" rather than "opinion evidence"
and to establish its probative value depending on the level of sophistication of the relevant
scientific discipline.
Analysis
Literature Reviewing the Examination and Impact of Physical Evidence
Since the early 1970s, the number of forensic laboratories has increased almost four-fold.
This growth is attributed to various factors such as drug abuse problems, the pressure on the
police and courts to rely on more objective evidence, scientific advancements in fields like
DNA testing, and the popular culture's fascination with forensic science portrayed in both
fiction and true crime media. However, despite the expansion of forensic science services,
there is a dearth of published research on the uses and impacts of forensic evidence. Early
studies in the 1960s and 1970s suggested that physical evidence was available at most crime
scenes, but scientific evidence was not extensively collected, and its influence on case
outcomes was minimal.
The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funded the most comprehensive studies on the use of
scientific evidence in case investigations and adjudication in the 1980s. According to
Peterson et al. (1984), at the police investigation level, offenses with scientifically analysed
evidence had clearance rates three times higher than cases where such evidence was not used.
Another related study found that scientific evidence played a limited role in decisions to
convict defendants but had a significant impact on sentencing. Lab reports led to higher rates
of incarceration, and they were the only type of evidence that affected the sentence length.
Recent studies on DNA evidence by Roman et al. (2008) showed that the collection of DNA
evidence doubled the solution rates of property crime and prosecutions, and it was much
more effective than fingerprints in using evidence databases. Additionally, Briody (2004)
found that homicide cases with DNA evidence were more likely to reach court and had a
positive influence on juries' decisions to convict.
Physical evidence left at a crime scene can be used to gather valuable information that can aid
in identifying those involved using scientific laboratory techniques. These techniques have
the potential to extract useful data from the physical clues present at the scene, including
details on who may or may not have been involved. The information that can be gleaned from
these techniques includes:
Identification and Classification – The review of physical evidence by competent crime
laboratory examiners often begins with tests to identify and classify a substance.
Common Origin – This is a refined and powerful conclusion in which the examiner
concludes that an item of evidence originated from a particular person or source.
Reconstruction/Corroboration - Reconstruction aids the investigator and prosecutor in
hypothesizing the order of events, the relative position of actors to one another, and how the
crime in question unfolded.
Different Origin/Negative Identification - Negative identifications are conclusions that a
substance is found not what the investigator hypothesized it to be. A conclusion of different
origin is a laboratory result that states two or more items of evidence are not of common
origin or source.
Inconclusive - A comparison between an item of evidence and a standard (paint, glass,
plastic, etc.) may simply be inconclusive.
Crime laboratory censuses conducted in recent years have revealed that there are millions of
cases submitted annually to the four hundred crime laboratories across the country. This has
led to a growing backlog of cases awaiting examination. The process of collecting and
submitting evidence to laboratories begins with the reporting of a crime to the police,
followed by the response of patrol and investigation personnel, the search for and collection
of evidence, and its submission to laboratories. Due to the increasing volume of scientific
evidence being submitted to laboratories, crime scene investigators and laboratories have had
to set up filters to screen out evidence before it reaches laboratory facilities. This has become
necessary to manage the high volume of evidence submissions.
Some Landmark Judgments in Forensic Science Investigation
Forensic science is extremely important in criminal cases that are especially focused on
circumstantial evidence. It may help establish the evidence of a crime, identify the culprit,
and determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. One of the primary investigations'
actions
Officers are required to thoroughly inspect the crime scene for any evidence that may be used
to prove the crime. During collecting, packaging, and shipping, the investigating officer may
be protected from any contamination of physical evidence that may develop at the crime
scene.
Evidence must be preserved, and proper precautions must be taken to prevent contamination
and tampering with the material.
In some cases, the accused were found guilty and given the death penalty and a fine by the
Sessions Judges for gruesome murder committed when they were about 10 years old after
having had sex with the offender and strangling him to death. These cases relied on scientific
evidence, including DNA profiles and oral testimony.
Due to the fact that there was just a little bit of one unburned palm with fingers available in
the Nitish Katara murder case, it was challenging to identify the deceased victim. The High
Court of Delhi was able to sustain the conviction of the accused in this case as well thanks to
the DNA profile's assistance in identifying the body remains by comparing DNA profiles
with the deceased's parents.
The father of the dead youngster filed a case in Sushil Mandal v. The State Represented by
CBI challenging the results of DNA profiling. The school administration encouraged both
sets of parents to keep an eye on their children since the deceased boy and the school girl
were on the verge of developing a mutual adolescent obsession. A week later, a totally
decomposed unidentifiable body was retrieved out of a lake49 after the youngster was later
reported missing. The petitioner stated that his son's clothing and body parts were
unidentifiable. He requested a writ of habeas corpus at the high court, charging the girl's
father and pleading with the court to order the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct an
investigation (CBI). The DNA test results of the dead person's body were in agreement with
his parents' genetic profiles (the petitioner and his wife). The skull super imposition test also
proved a connection between the corpse that was found and the person who had died.
Yet, despite the fact that the DNA test was repeated to his satisfaction, the petitioner refused
to accept the reality shown by these scientific tests under one excuse or another. The Supreme
Court adjourned the case after relying on scientific procedures, such as DNA profiling, for
human identification. In Anmolsingh Swarnsingh Jabbal v. The State of Maharastra, the
Bombay High Court confirmed a life sentence for the murder of a young woman engineer by
her co-worker in a case of unrequited love, relying on DNA evidence in addition to other
evidence.
The Delhi Police looked into another instance of severe rape and unnatural sexual activity
with a four-year-old girl who was living in a slum and employed DNA profiling to connect
the offender with the heinous crime of sexual abuse. The court found the accused guilty and
overturned the trial court's acquittal decision after carefully considering the child's testimony
and the numerous approaches utilised to analyse it. The investigation's results were supported
by DNA reports and other evidence.
In another case, the use of DNA technology cleared the path for the prosecution and
execution of the offender, who was found guilty of kidnapping and killing the woman after
being gang-raped by an auto rickshaw driver and dumped her body in a flowing canal.
Kishan v. State of Haryana
the Trial Court, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly relying
on the FSL report convicted the appellant under Sec. 376 and Sec. 506 of IPC. In a recent
judgment in case of State of Gujarat v. Mohan Hamir Gohil and others45, Division Bench of
this Court after referring to various authorities on DNA technology, different methodology
used for testing and the scientific advancements made world over, noticed that over a period
of time the Courts across the world including in India have been placing heavy reliance on
DNA results. It was observed " Over a period, the technology of DNA testing has made great
strides and achieved sophistication leading to results which can often times be used either for
inclusion or exclusion of the accused.
Conclusion
In the Indian criminal justice system, there is an increasing emphasis on the use of technology
in criminal investigations and trials. Reforms have been recommended by various
commissions to incorporate technology in crime detection to improve the efficiency of the
system. The laws have been amended to allow for the use of forensic technologies in crime
investigation and trials, but there are still flaws in the laws that need to be addressed. The
courts are hesitant to rely on scientific evidence due to their restrictive approach or inherent
defects in the evidence presented in court. However, it is essential to provide fair justice, and
forensic evidence is more authentic than ocular evidence. Forensic science being scientific
evidence is a boon for the criminal justice system, and we need to overcome the existing
flaws to move forward. To achieve this, we need to learn from the past, disrupt our thinking,
strengthen the community, and change our culture. We need to work together towards
resolving scientific deficiencies in existing forensic evidence while providing a firm basis for
new innovative technologies in the forensic science ecosystem. We need to ensure that law
enforcement and investigative communities recognize and use forensic science to its full
potential, and a contextualized approach to evaluative reporting of forensic science data in a
particular case can help fulfill this problem-solving potential. Such an approach has been
suggested by the Association of Forensic Science Providers, among others.
___________________________________________________________________________
