See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/361083889

ADMISIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Article · June 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 2,719

1 author:

Sachin kumar
Uttaranchal University
21 PUBLICATIONS 3 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sachin kumar on 04 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sambodhi Indological Research Journal of L.D.I.I ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-45 No.-01(V) : 2022
ADMISIBILITY OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

Deepika Teotia Scholar, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University

Sachin Kumar Assistant Professor, Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University

Introduction
With the advancement of science and technology, scientific experts' evidence is increasingly relied
upon. In today's world, it is common for the court to request scientific proof. This scientific information
is presented in court as an opinion; however, the final decision will always be made by the judge,
ensuring that the ruling is fair.
People are falsely convicted of crimes they did not commit all around the world. The forensic evidence
gathered from the crime scene, along with expert guidance, can save these convictions. As a result, the
forensic evidence's legitimacy and admissibility must be addressed. This evidence is more valuable.
By supplying evidence for the crime, it can either save or punish a person.1

Admissibility of Forensic Scientific Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

The relationship between law and science is unavoidable, especially in criminal cases that require
forensic analysis of evidence collected at the scene of the crime. Law has always looked to science for
help, and this is becoming more common by the day. Forensic scientific evidence has been heavily
questioned during the previous three decades. Because of some of the ethical issues in the forensic
scientific profession, serious criticisms have been levied against the reliability of numerous tests in
forensic identification evidence. The difficulties that scientific evidence faces in criminal prosecutions
can be divided into four categories: system or control issues, accuracy issues, honesty issues, and legal
skills issues. Apart from these issues, there are several other hurdles that trial judges must face when
analysing forensic scientific evidence, including the possibility that the expert witness is biased or
conflicted. The judge faces a difficult problem in evaluating the many different components of expert
evidence that has to do with science or technology. In a brief period, scientific expert testimony has
overwhelmed the criminal justice system.2 In fact, judges are unaware of the standards that must be
followed to rigorously evaluate scientific evidence presented in a court of law. Every advancement in
science and technology has a direct impact on the criminal justice system's truth-finding process. For
the past three decades, the real issue among legal experts has been who would evaluate scientific
evidence: the judge or the scientific community. If the job is completely delegated to the scientific
community, it will have a direct impact on the traditional role of judges in truth-finding. The judges,
on the other hand, are not expected to act like amateur scientists. When analysing scientific expert
evidence for the purpose of admitting it during trial, there should be consistency among the judges.
The trial judges are tasked with not only deciding the relevance of an expert's evidence, but also with
determining its reliability by acting as true "gatekeepers" based on admissibility requirements. It is
important to note that, like other jurisdictions, India has no clear criterion for analysing scientific
evidence in criminal proceedings, either set by legislation or by Supreme Court recommendations. The
admissibility of evidence at the threshold in a criminal trial should be based on its legal dependability
as well as its logical relevance. When it comes to forensic evidence, the gatekeeper role assigned to
trial judges may be more important for ensuring that proffered evidence meets basic standards of
authenticity, relevance, and reliability in the application of a scientific theory than for evaluating the
reliability or general acceptance of new scientific theory.3

1
Justice U.C. Shrivastava, Immunity from Self-Incrimination under Art. 20(3) of the Constitution of India, JJTRI,
U.P., http://ijtr.nic.in/articles/art19.pdf (last visited on 30.03.2022).
2
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations High Commissioner For HumanRights
(last visited on 30.3.2022).
3
Report of the Committee on Draft National Policy on Criminal Justice, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,
July, 2007.
Copyright © 2022 Authors 156
Sambodhi Indological Research Journal of L.D.I.I ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-45 No.-01(V) : 2022
Scientific Expert Evidence Admissibility Rules
The rules of admissibility are the pre-eminent evidentiary strategy for controlling the quality of
evidence offered to the factfinder at trial. Expert witnesses are only authorised to testify about matters
that are scientific, technical, or involve specialised knowledge that is beyond the capabilities of the
judges to understand on their own, according to international law. The expert witness' primary role is
to supply assertions of knowledge that are beyond the judges' grasp. An expert's opinion is admissible
to supply scientific information to the Court that is likely to be outside of a judge's expertise or
knowledge. The Court must be satisfied that by admitting scientific evidence, the expert's field of
specialist knowledge would undoubtedly aid the Court in reaching a proper and legitimate finding on
the fact in question that is related to a scientific theory or practise. The expert qualification rule, the
field of ability rule, the common knowledge rule, the abnormality rule, and the ultimate issue rule have
all been identified by the criminal courts in England for the admission of expert testimony. When
considering whether expert testimony is admissible, the trial judge must consider whether the evidence
is relevant to the issues in the case and if it is credible. The trial courts must strictly adhere to the
essential standards for expert opinion admissibility, such as relevant ability, evidentiary reliability, and
so on. The standards for expert evidence admission must show that the information provided by an
expert witness is likely to be outside of a judge's or jury's ability and knowledge. 4 The person claiming
competence must be an expert in the relevant field and have adequate understanding of the issue to
supply a valuable opinion. In Field v. Leeds City Council, it was decided that the expert's testimony
should be objective and purposeful. For admission purposes, expert opinion evidence must meet an
acceptable reliability standard in all other aspects. According to Dallagher, the field of ability must be
sufficiently well established to pass the standard relevance and reliability requirements. The duty of
an expert witness is to present information to a court that is not known to him to aid him in reaching
the correct decision. The judge can believe or disbelieve an expert's testimony based on his or her
appraisal, and the evidence may lose its utility if it is not kept within the bounds set by the judge. A
witness could not usurp the judge's role or intrude into the judge's domain. An expert can only supply
evidence; he or she cannot decide. The goal of the criminal courts' insistence on the admission criterion
is to decide whether the expert can contribute information to assist the fact finder in resolving an issue
in a trial. Scientific evidence is particularly important since it is admissible in a court of law if it would
aid the trier of fact during the trial. If an expert's testimony does not aid the judges in reaching a
decision on a fact in dispute, then such testimony is of little service during the trial. As a result, the
procedures used by an expert should have received widespread support in the scientific community. In
a criminal trial, scientific evidence presented to a court of law by an expert will be tested with the goal
of admitting it based on scientific theory and technique. In such cases, the court cannot be a spectator
because judges are the best people to decide which theory or technique is in question, not only from
the perspective of its proponents, but also from the perspective of a non-collaborator, that is, someone
who a part of the laboratory is not where the theory or technique was developed. 5
Evidence
It is evidence in the form of any document, photograph, mark, recording, or video given in court to
prove a person's guilt or innocence. This can be used as a witness as well. The attorneys' words are not
considered evidence.
The following are examples of evidence:
Oral evidence refers to remarks that are allowed by the court and must be made in front of it by
witnesses. These assertions are about facts that are being investigated.
The documents presented for the court's inspection are considered documentary evidence. This can
also include electronic records.6

4
The Role of DNA in Criminal Investigation- Admissibility in Indian Legal System and FuturePerspectives, 15-
21IJHSSI Vol.2 (2013).
5
OlivierRibaux, SimonJ.Walshand PierreMargot, The contribution of forensic science to crime analysis and
investigation: Forensic intelligence, 171-181 FSI vol.156 (2006).
6
V.R.Dinkar, ‘Forensic Scientific Evidence: Problems and Pit falls in India’,79-84,IJFSP Vol.3(2015).
Copyright © 2022 Authors 157
Sambodhi Indological Research Journal of L.D.I.I ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-45 No.-01(V) : 2022
Self-incrimination is addressed in Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. It is founded on the legal
principle of nemo tenetur prodere accusare seipsum, which says that no one is obligated to accuse
himself. The Constitution forbids the making of any remark that could lead to criminal charges being
brought against the accused, either now or in the future. The Supreme Court has expanded the scope
of this immunity by understanding the term "witness" to include both oral and documentary evidence.
Article 21 contains all a person's fundamental human rights. The right to privacy is one of the most
important rights that has risen to prominence because of judicial interpretation of article 21. It is not
specifically stated in the constitution. The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 7
emphasized the importance of developing scientific methodologies and methods for investigating and
interrogating suspects. Narco-analysis and brain mapping are two effective scientific evidence
procedures. They can be an effective deterrent to incarcerated deaths and torture. Thousands of cases
exist where massive injuries are inflicted on the accused to elicit information. As a result, putting an
accused person through a scientific test is a much superior option.

Science of Forensics
It is a function in the legal system that aids in the attainment of justice in a criminal case. Forensic
evidence is any evidence that allows detectives to quickly identify the offender. This can be hair
strands, a distinctive mark, a person's fingerprints, and so on. The forensic scientists assist the police
in identifying the perpetrator by locating detective details obtained from the crime site. They conduct
extensive research and pay close attention to the finer points.
It signifies that science has been applied to legal issues. The forensic science determines the nature of
evidence, identifies DNA matches, fingerprints, and so on. This evidence can be offered by a scientist
who is skilled in his field and will examine numerous tests in which he is knowledgeable. This forensic
evidence is used in criminal proceedings as well as during the inquiry. They supply minute details that
aid the investigation processes for the officials in charge. Knowing the patterns of the crime scene also
aids in linking crimes and discovering connections between them, making it easier to identify suspects.
DNA Analysis
Deoxyribonucleic Acid is the abbreviation for Deoxyribonucleic Acid. All living cells include DNA.
Bones, hair, blood, and urine are all used to make it. 8Friedrich Micscher, a Swiss scientist, invented
it in 1869. Because each person's DNA is distinct and different, a DNA test is always depended upon.
This test is used to detect a crime, identify, and match the child's parents, and so on. This technique is
also especially useful in criminal instances where there is a succession dispute.
Because lawyers and judges lack sufficient knowledge of science and technology, specialists are
assigned to conduct the test and provide their opinion. In most criminal instances, this aids the judge
in discovering the truth. There was previously a disagreement about who would review the forensic
evidence. Is it the judge or the scientific experts who make the decision? But, in the end, it was
determined that the judges had the authority to hold the final discussion, as there is a possibility that
the forensic evidence may be contradictory.

Validity of the Narco-Analysis test:

The narco-analysis test is one of the most effective methods for determining the perpetrator. It is a
term for a diagnostic method that involves the use of psychotropic medicines, particularly barbiturates.
It is predicated on the idea that when a person is under the effect of certain barbiturates, their ability
to fantasize is hindered or somehow neutralized, causing them to enter a semi-nuclear condition and
unable to lie. During this examination, the accused is asked to make a statement that could be used as
evidence.
Even though the Evidence Act is silent on this type of scientific procedure application.

7
(1997) 1 SCC 416: 1997 SCC (Cri) 92
8
Friedrich Micscher, University of Basel, Molecule Scientist (1844-1895)
Copyright © 2022 Authors 158
Sambodhi Indological Research Journal of L.D.I.I ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-45 No.-01(V) : 2022
The test's findings are not admissible in court. It merely facilitates the research process. Because most
crimes are created in a person's mind, this test is an appropriate mechanism. Evidence laws not only
guarantee that criminal processes go smoothly, but they also preserve a defendant's right to a fair trial.
The test is frequently associated with violations of a person's fundamental rights, raising concerns
about its admissibility. The constitution expressly states that a person cannot be coerced to testify
against himself, hence a statement made while under the influence of a controlled substance cannot be
used as evidence in our country. The results of this test could be suspect since there is a risk that
someone withheld information on purpose or gave an inaccurate account of the incident. In India,
however, the test is gradually being integrated into investigations, court hearings, and laboratories.

What role does forensic evidence play in criminal investigations?

This evidence can be used to convict someone who may have committed the crime. This evidence is
crucial in the investigation of a significant case study. When forensic evidence is employed, the court
cannot be biased, and there is a very slim probability that the decision would be rendered in an unfair
manner to the innocent.
Forensic science can determine the identity of the suspect, the type of the crime, the day and time of
the incident, as well as the location and motive for the crime. It provides scientific information based
on physical evidence obtained from phones, weapons, footprints, and other sources.
When a court can rely on the opinions of the court, it is stated in Section 45 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872. The court can establish opinions based on any foreign legislation, science, art, finger
impressions, handwriting, and identification by an expert. The experts, on the other hand, are only
advisors and not witnesses because they did not witness the crime; they are only offering their thoughts
based on their scientific studies. However, the idea of expert opinion is required. Expert advice aids
the court of law in reaching a decision. They rely on it mostly because these specialists have studied
similar research in the past.9
In the same way as India does, England allows expert opinions as an exemption to the 10'Opinion Rule.'
Towards 1923, the first step in determining the admissibility of scientific evidence was taken in the
United States. The legal system in the United States has a tough time determining the admissibility of
forensic evidence. The major issue here is determining how much weight should be given to expert
advice based on forensic evidence.
In India, most of the time, when it comes to criminal justice, the innocent is punished while the wicked
are acquitted. As a result, the reform must be strengthened and made more effective. As a result, the
'Malimath Committee' proposed that forensic science be given greater prominence in current
technology for investigations and criminal procedures.

Landmark cases
Munish Kumar murder case
Because only a small area of the palm with the finger was left unburned, it was extremely difficult to
discover the person responsible in this case. However, forensic science was used to conduct a DNA
test, which assisted in identifying and recognising the body by matching the DNA with the parents.
This also aided the Delhi High Court in identifying the defendants.11
Sushil Mandal v. The State
In this case, the petitioner is the father of a deceased boy who is contesting the DNA results. The
adolescent kid who died was on the verge of falling in love with a girl at his school. As a result, the
school's principal suggested that the parents of both families keep an eye on their children. The
youngster went missing after a few days, and a week later, a body was discovered in a lake, completely
decayed and so unidentified. The petitioner was unable to identify the body, and the clothing he was
wearing did not indicate that he was his own kid. In the High Court, he filed a habeas corpus petition,

9
Kishan Chand v. Sita Ram, AIR 2005 P&H 156
10
Simon Greenleaf, A treatise on the law of evidence, Boston: Little Brown and Company, p. 440-1, 16th ed.
11
Munish Kumar v. State, AIR 2022 (Cr. Misc. 101 of 2022)
Copyright © 2022 Authors 159
Sambodhi Indological Research Journal of L.D.I.I ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-45 No.-01(V) : 2022
alleging the girl's father and demanding that the probe be directed through the CBI (Central Bureau of
Investigation).
Experts then conducted a DNA test, which revealed that the deceased person's DNA matched that of
the petitioner and his wife. A skull superimposition test was also performed. This test also revealed a
relationship between the deceased and the body that was discovered. The petitioner, on the other hand,
was unable to accept the facts. Only after the scientific testing were completed did the truth emerge.
The apex court based its decision on the scientific tests that were undertaken, and so the case was
closed.12
Field v. Leeds City Council
In this decision, the court held that the evidence provided by experts and highly competent individuals
must be unbiased and relevant to the subject at hand. It also proved that the evidence could not have
been presented by any attorney. They supply information that the judge does not have access to, which
aids them in making the best judgement possible. Though the court has the authority to accept or reject
the expert's evidence through numerous examinations. These experts only have the authority to express
their opinions, not to make final decisions in the ongoing procedures.13
Magan Bihari Lal v. the State of Punjab
It is a well-known case in which the Supreme Court overturned and set aside a conviction based on
experts identifying the handwriting. The Supreme Court stated that an expert's opinion should be taken
with caution.14
Frye v US 1928
The validity of the polygraph was dismissed by the Columbia court in this case since the innovation
had no widespread recognition at the time. The court set forth rules regarding the admissibility of
experimental examination proceedings. Only if a reasonable majority of the relevant scientific
community has endorsed this method may the Frye Test be used in court. When the Federal Rules of
Evidence were adopted in federal courts in 1975, the Frye Test was amended once more. As a result,
there was no requirement for stringent acceptance. This revised rule also included evidence
guidelines.15
According to the first edition of the Federal Rule, a person qualifies as an expert if:
• the evidence found is true in nature and has offered relevant information; and
• the expert's knowledge of science and technology gives evidence regarding resolving disputes and
discovering the truth.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc,1993
The court explained in the case of that the Federal Rule comprises widespread acceptance but also
considers science. The Daubert court stated that forensic science evidence that they are unsure of can
be determined as true by a process of robust cross-examination and analysis of the proof offered. Many
states adopt the Daubert standards, although just a few still adhere to the federal guidelines.16
Rule 702
The Federal Rules were adopted for the purpose of litigation in all federal courts in 1975, after a half-
century of Frye Rule. They rely on the advice of specialists and the tests that they conduct to determine
the true nature of the crime.
The alternate way to the Frye Rule was chosen since it did not require universal acceptance and was
more flexible. Witnesses who are qualified to be an expert, who are knowledgeable, experienced, and
highly educated, can do such tests, according to the first 17Federal Rule of Evidence 702. Each state is
free to follow its own standards, but with the testimony of experts, most states began to adopt the
federal guidelines. These experts simplify confusing facts, making it easier for a lawyer or judge to

12
Sushil Mandal v. The State, (2014) SCC, Mad. 7362.
13
(1999) EWCA Civ 3013; (2000) 17 EG 165
14
1977 AIR 1091, 1977 SCR (2)1007
15
293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
16
509 U.S. 579 (1993)
17
Michigan Legal Publishing Ltd. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702: Testimony by Expert Witnesses.
Copyright © 2022 Authors 160
 Sambodhi Indological Research Journal of L.D.I.I ISSN: 2249-6661
(UGC Care Journal) Vol-45 No.-01(V) : 2022
continue the case's processes, as well as providing a significant value to the court in determining the
case's conclusions without disruption.

Conclusion
The primary goal of using forensic science to gather evidence is to ensure that justice is administered
fairly. This is done in order to punish the criminal rather than the innocent party. In numerous
situations, forensic evidence has contributed in the identification of the actual culprit, who is then
sentenced by the court. The forensic evidence produced in court is more valuable than the non-forensic
evidence. Though there are a few instances where the proof is incorrect. More specialists should be
rewarded for continuously providing valuable case information and evidence, allowing the case to be
solved on this basis. Expansion of our forensic science can lead to greater progress in the country. As
a result, the accused may face more severe penalty recommendations. Detecting lies, crimes, and
criminals will surely be aided by the new scientific technique. However, there is some ambiguity
concerning the role of forensic evidence in supporting courts in making rational decisions. They
haven't decided whether or not they'll be tenable yet. The court should legalize the legal use of Narco-
analysis, polygraphs, and brain mapping. Law is a dynamic process that must change as circumstances
change.
The judicial system in India is built on the principle that a person is innocent unless proven guilty. In
addition, our legal system promises to safeguard an innocent person even if the lives of a hundred
offenders are on the line. As a result, it will need to enlist the aid of technology to accomplish this in
a more efficient manner.

Copyright © 2022 Authors 161

View publication stats