Admissibility Standards of Scientific Expert Evidence in Criminal Trials

C.E. Pratap

Abstract

The scientific expert evidence has been rapidly increasing with the advancement of
science and technology. In the recent days the criminal investigations and trials are mostly
depending on the scientific techniques used by the experts in collecting evidence. Scientific
evidence thus arrived by technical means when produced before the Court of law leads to a
pertinent question about its admissibility. The expert evidence comes in the form of opinion
during the trial involves a point in issue which is scientific in nature. It makes the trial Court
duty bound to scrutinize the expert opinion and scientific evidence very closely and to find
out the basis upon which it was based. It is for the Court to evaluate the scientific evidence
and to judge whether the expert opinion has been correctly reached based on the admissibility
standard as laid down under law.

Introduction

Law has always sought the assistance of science and this has become indispensible in
the criminal justice administration. The Courts have to deal with novel scientific evidence
very often which has posed profound challenges for the law. Scientific evidence is an
inevitable facet of criminal trial and the development of science facilitates the investigation in
solving the crimes. The collection of forensic evidence and the application of forensic
sciences have become essential to criminal investigation and prosecution. The evidence
which is admitted in the trial must not only be relevant but also reliable. An expert witness is
called to testify about the reliability of the scientific evidence sought to be introduced at trial.
Ensuring the scientific validity of scientific expert evidence always posed problems for
judges and advocates largely untrained in science. 1 It is the cardinal rule of criminal
jurisprudence that before any evidence is admitted in trial it is the duty of the Court to
scrutinize very closely and to find out the basis upon which it was based. The challenges


Ph.D Research Scholar (Part-time), Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Chennai.
1
Bert Black, “Evolving legal standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence”, Science, Vol.239 (1988),
p.1508. Available at: www.sciencemag.org. (Last accessed on 10/07/2014).
posed to trial judges from these new forms of evidence go beyond question of admissibility.2
The trial Courts are per se entrusted with the task of determining the standard of admissibility
of scientific expert evidence on the basis of the legal reliability involved in the techniques
put forth by the expert in arriving at such decision. The probative value of any evidence for
that matter is based on the legal reliability coupled with logical relevancy. 3

Issues on Admissibility of Forensic Scientific Evidence in Criminal Trial

The relationship between law and science is inevitable more so particularly in

criminal cases which involves analyzing evidence collected through forensic methods from
the scene of occurrence. Law has always sought the assistance of science, and this has been
increasing day by day. During the last three decades, forensic scientific evidence has been
seriously criticized. Serious criticisms were leveled against the reliability of many tests in
forensic identification evidence, due to some of the ethical problems in the forensic scientific
discipline.4 The challenges facing scientific evidence qua criminal cases are broadly
classified in to four major headings viz., system or control problems, accuracy problems,
honesty problems, and lawyer skills problems.5 Apart from these problems there are certain
other challenges that are to be confronted by the trial judges while evaluating forensic
scientific evidence are that the expert witness may be biased or conflicted. 6

It is a difficult task for the judiciary to evaluate the multifarious aspects of expert
evidence which has the bearing either on science or technology. The scientific expert
testimony has flooded into the criminal trial system within a short span of time. In fact, the
judges are in the dark with regard to the standards to be maintained for the proper evaluation
of the scientific evidence that comes before the court of law. Almost all developments in
science and technology have direct impact on the trial which deals with the truth-finding
process in criminal cases. The real problem arisen among the legal scholars for the past three
decades is who will evaluate the scientific evidence; whether the judge or the scientific
community. If the job is completely assigned to the scientific community, then it would
2
Donald E. Shelton, Twenty-first century Forensic Science Challenges for Trial Judges in Criminal Cases:
Where the “Polybutadiene” meets the “Bitumen”, Widener Law Journal, (2009), Vol.18, pp.309-396 at p.310.
3
C.E. Pratap, Scientific Evidence in Criminal Investigation (2015), CTC Publications Private Limited, Chennai,
p.75.
4
Pereira, Quality Assurance in Forensic Science, 28, Forensic Science International (1985).
5
Richard H. Underwood, Evaluating Scientific and Forensic Evidence, 24 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 149 (2000).
6
Paul Giannelli, The Abuse of Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases: The Need for Independent Crime
Laboratories, 4 VA. J. SOC. POL'Y & L. 439, 467-68 (1997).
directly affect the traditional truth finding role of the judges. At the same time, the judges are
not expected to act as amateur scientists. 7 There should be uniformity among the judges while
evaluating scientific expert evidence for the purpose of admitting the same during trial. The
trial judges are entrusted with the duty not only to determine the relevancy of the evidence
proffered by an expert but also to fix its reliability by assuming the role of real “gatekeepers” 8
based on the admissibility standards. It is pathetic to note that like other jurisdictions, in India
there is no specific standard either fixed by law or guidelines of the Supreme Court for
evaluating scientific evidence in criminal cases. The evidence to be admitted at the threshold
in a criminal trial should be determined on the basis of the legal reliability coupled with
logical relevancy. When it comes to forensic evidence, the gatekeeper role 9 assigned to trial
judges may find its most important function not in an evaluation of the reliability or general
acceptance of new scientific theory, but rather in the very traditional functions of insuring
that proffered evidence meets basic standards of authenticity, relevance, and reliability in the
particular application of a scientific theory.

Rules of Admissibility of Scientific Expert Evidence

The rules of admissibility are the sine qua non evidentiary technique for regulating
the quality of information presented to the fact-finder at trial. The position of law across the
globe makes it amply clear that expert witnesses are only allowed to testify about subjects
that are scientific, technical, or that involved specialized knowledge that is beyond the ability
of the judges to understand on their own. 10 The essential function of the expert witness is to
provide propositions of special knowledge which is beyond the ‘ken’ of judges. 11 An expert’s
opinion is admissible to furnish to the Court with scientific information, which is likely to be
outside the experience or knowledge of a judge. 12 The Court has to satisfy that on admitting
scientific evidence that the field of expertise knowledge of an expert will certainly facilitate
the Court to arrive at a proper and valid conclusion upon the fact in issue which has a bearing
on scientific theory or technique. The criminal Courts in England have identified the rules
7
V.R. Dinkar, Scientific Expert Evidence (2013), Eastern Law House, Kolkatta, p.140.
8
Frye v. United States 293 F 1013 (DC Cir 1923).
9
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993). The term ‘gatekeeper role’ refers that
the duty of the trial judges is not only to determine the relevance of the evidence but also extending their role to
fix its reliability.
10
Pratyusha Das, Forensic Evidence Admissibility in Criminal Justice System (2019), Eastern Law House,
Kolkatta, p.26.
11
The term ‘beyond the ken’ means totally foreign subject in which the judges are ignorant. This was used by
Charles T., See McCormick on Evidence, 3rd Eds., 1984, p.33.
12
John Henry Wigmore, Evidence in Trials at Common Law, 1917.
mentioned infra for admission of expert evidence viz., the expert qualification rule; the field
of expertise rule; the common knowledge rule; the abnormality rule and the ultimate issue
rule.13

While deciding admissibility of expert evidence, the trial judge must look into
whether the evidence is relevant to the issues in the case is reliable. 14 The trial Courts are
required to have strict adherence to the basic requirements for admissibility of expert opinion
such as relevant expertise, evidentiary reliability etc. The standards for admissibility of expert
evidence must satisfy that the information which is furnished by an expert witness is likely to
be outside the experience and knowledge of a judge or jury. 15 The person claiming expertise
must be an expert in the relevant field and has acquired sufficient knowledge of the subject to
render his opinion of value.16 In Field v. Leeds City Council 17
it was held that the evidence
presented by the expert should be unbiased and purposive evidence. The expert opinion
evidence for the purpose of admissibility must in other respects satisfy at the very threshold
an acceptable reliability. In Dallagher18 it was categorically held that the field of expertise
must be sufficiently well established to pass the ordinary tests of relevance and reliability.

The role of an expert witness is to provide some information which is outside the
knowledge of a judge so as to help him to reach the correct conclusion. The judge may
believe or disbelieve the evidence given by an expert through evaluation and the evidence
may cease to be useful if it is not kept within the limits allowed to him. A witness could not
usurp the function or invade the domain of the judge. An expert can only give evidence and
cannot decide the issue.19 The purpose of insisting on the admissibility rule by the criminal
Courts is to come to a decision whether the expert can provide information to help the fact
finder resolve an issue in a trial. 20 Scientific evidence has a particular significance because if
it would assist the trier of fact during the trial, then it is admissible in a court of law. If the
evidence proffered by an expert is in no way would help the judges in arriving at a conclusion
upon a fact in issue then such evidence is of little use during the trial. It is for this reason the
13
I.R. Frecklon, The Trial of the Expert, (OUP, 1987), chs 3-5 (common knowledge, field of expertise and
ultimate issue), C.f. Criminal Evidence, Paul Roberts and Adrian Zuckerman (2004), Oxford University Press,
New York, p.305.
14
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) 119 S Ct 1167.
15
R v. Turner (1975) QB 834.
16
Bonython (1984) 38 SASR 45.
17
(2001) 1 EGLR 54.
18
(2003) Cr App R 12.
19
Supra note 7 at p.83.
20
Erica Beecher-Monas, Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due
Process (2007), Cambridge University Press, New York, p.7.
techniques adopted by an expert ought to have gained general acceptance within the scientific
community.21 In a criminal trial the scientific evidence placed by an expert before the court of
law will be tested for the purpose of admitting it based on the scientific theory and technique.
In such occasion court cannot act as a spectator because judges are the appropriate persons to
decide which theory or technique in question, not only from the view point of its proponent
but also from the view point of a non-collaborator i.e., outside the laboratory from which the
particular theory or technique has developed.22

Admissibility Standards of Scientific Evidence in Criminal Trial

The cardinal rules for admissibility of scientific expert evidence in criminal trial are
(1) Relevancy, (2) Reliability and (3) Admissibility. It is a difficult task for the judiciary to
evaluate the multifarious aspects of evidence which has the bearing either on science and
technology. In fact, the judges are in dark with regard to the standards to be maintained for
the proper evaluation of the scientific evidence that comes before them during trial. In India,
the screening of scientific evidence is in a pitiable condition. The factors determining the
reliability of scientific evidence are constructing and applying by the judges according to
their whims and fancies. The major problem in India is that the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is
silent with regard to the standards which should be applied by the trial judges while
evaluating scientific evidence. Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 simply says that
if a person has some special skill on a particular subject like science or art, he may be called
as an expert and his evidence is a relevant fact. Similarly, section 51 approves the relevancy
of the grounds of an expert’s opinion. Apart from this, there is no rule that guides the trial
judge in determining the reliability and admissibility of expert evidence.23

Scientific evidence or forensic evidence is evidence which is arrived at by scientific

or technical means. When it is produced before the court of law, the first question arises
about its admissibility. The trial courts have been facing a great challenge in evaluating the
reliability of scientific evidence.24 Ensuring the scientific validity of forensic evidence has

21
Ian Freckelton, Scientific Evidence, Freckelton, Ian R and Hugh Selby, Expert Evidence: Law, Practice,
Procedure and Advocacy (1999), Lawbook Co., Sydney, p.463.
22
Supra note 7 at p.115.
23
C.E. Pratap, Reliability of Forensic Scientific Evidence in Criminal Trials: An Indian Perspective, The
International Manager, ISSN 2348-9413, July-September, Volume 3, Issue 11, (2016), pp.182-193.
24
Merilee M. Kapsa and Carl B. Meyer, Scientific Experts Making Their Testimony More Reliable, 35 Cal W L
Rev 313 (Spring 1999).
always posed problems for judges and lawyers during trial. Since they are not trained in
science they are put to a pitiable situation in determining whether the scientific answers are
reliable enough to warrant their use at trial. Reliability is the primary reason that makes the
scientific proof more attractive.25 The courts were considering competency of the expert as a
criterion for admissibility rather than reliability of the scientific theory or technique used for
arriving at a particular conclusion. Whatever general standards and checklist we lay down for
the evaluation of the reliability of forensic scientific evidence, it is the responsibility of the
trial judge alone to fix it in the case at hand after considering the propositions and its
application to the existing facts. In India, there is no jury trial; the judge is the sole person to
determinate the legal as well as factual issues. Therefore, judges should educate themselves
in different forensic scientific techniques. 26 Further there is no duty entrusted to the trial
judges by the law to screen the scientific evidence before entering the admissibility threshold.
There is no standard criterion laid down under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for admissibility of
scientific evidence.

Admissibility of Expert Evidence: Indian Legal Position

In India, the precedent generally followed by the courts in the case of admissibility of
scientific evidence is that the court may normally require corroboration as a rule of caution.
The judicial precedents in India confirm that the requirements of corroboration have been
playing a vital role in the determination and admissibility of scientific evidence. Indian courts
were reluctant to admit a particular piece of scientific evidence independently without a
proper supporting piece of other evidence and in awarding conviction on the basis of the sole
forensic scientific expert testimony.27 Indian courts will normally insist for corroboration if
there is any doubt in the reliability of scientific evidence. The standard of corroboration
followed by the Indian courts can be considered as an effective check against the acting on
scientific evidence in to the criminal trial system. 28 The trial courts decide the issue of
admissibility of scientific expert evidence based on its relevancy. The principles of
admissibility in Indian courts are that evidence can be given only of relevant facts and facts in
issue. A fact may be relevant but not admissible, like in case of documentary evidence, only

25
Paul C. Giannelli, The Twenty-first Annual Kenneth J. Hodson Lecture: Scientific Evidence in Criminal
Prosecutions, 137 Mil L Rev 167 (1992).
26
V.R. Dinkar (2015) Forensic Scientific Evidence: Problems and Pitfalls in India. Int J Forensic Sci Pathol.
3(2), 79-84.
27
S. Gopal v. State of A.P. AIR 1996 SC 2148.
28
State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdeo Singh AIR 1992 SC 2100.
under certain circumstances secondary evidence of a document can be produced. If it does
not satisfy the legislative provision as envisaged under Indian Evidence Act, 1872, despite
the fact that a document might be relevant but it would not be admissible. Therefore in India,
the principle for accepting forensic evidence is relevant and admissible under the broad rules
of reliability, helpfulness to the trier of a fact, fitness etc.29

Indian courts were reluctant to admit a particular piece of scientific evidence

independently without a proper supporting piece of other evidence in awarding conviction on
the basis of the sole scientific expert testimony. The trial Courts do insist on corroboration of
In a famous case of Magan Bhiarilal v. State of Punjab30 Supreme Court struck down and set
aside the conviction confirmed by the Punjab and Haryana High court on the basis of
uncorroborated testimony of the handwriting expert. The Supreme Court observed: “It is well
settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution. ... There is a profusion
of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert
opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it
has almost become a rule of law.”

It was held by the Supreme Court in Forest Range Officer v. P. Mohhamad Ali31 while
determining the probative value of scientific expert evidence it is clear that it assists the Court
in reaching a particular conclusion where technical assistance is necessary. But it does not
help the Court in interpretation. The law is well settled and it is a general rule accepted by the
Courts that expert’s opinion if corroborated, can be relied upon, even though nowhere does
the Indian Evidence Act say that corroboration is sine qua non for the same but the Courts
have developed this rule to ensure that the judgment is free from any collusion. 32 It is
understood that the condition precedent stipulated in Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
mandates an expert to state facts which he has perceived. It is however not his function to
draw inferences from the facts perceived by him. 33 On the basis of this legal analogy in India
it is accepted without examining the expert as a witness in Court, no reliance can be placed
on an opinion alone.34 Thus it is apposite for the trial judges to take in to account that the
29
Supra note 10 at p.42.
30
AIR 1977 SC 1091.
31
AIR 1994 SC 120.
32
Palania Pillai v. State, 1991 Cri LJ 1563.
33
Shashank Jain, “Scientific Evidence and Opinion of Experts – A Study into Concept, Rules of Admission and
the Indian, American and English Conception, Similarities and Distinguishing Factors”, 2006 Cri.L.J. Journal
Section, pp.209-217.
34
AIR 2000 SC 1691.
credibility of such expert witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions
and the data and material furnished which forms the basis of his conclusions.35

Admissibility Standards in other comparative jurisdictions: Rules of Similarities and

Distinguishing Features

Like in India in England also expert opinion is accepted as an exception to the

‘Opinion Rule’. An expert opinion is admissible to furnish to the Court with scientific
information which is likely to be outside the experience or knowledge of a judge or jury. 36 In
England, to admit a particular piece of scientific expert evidence, it must be helpful to the
trier of fact. If it is helpful, then it is admissible, regardless of whether the theory or technique
which forms the basis of the testimony is reliable or the relevant scientific community for
accepting the same. In England experts are allowed to testify on any number of matters, the
Courts are generally receptive to new varieties of expertise. 37 In the English Courts, it is for
the judge to determine whether the particular witness can demonstrate sufficient competence
within his field to be treated as an expert and to be permitted to give evidence of his opinion.
This implies that the witness will show the Court that he possessed relevant professional
qualifications and competence. The legal position on the admissibility of expert evidence is
more or less similar in India and England.

In United States of America Courts were struggling to determine the standard of

admissibility of scientific evidence. The major issues that would culminate in to the ultimate
decision of the court of law to decide as to how much weight should be given to the scientific
evidence and to the expert opinion after considering whether the subject matter of expert
opinion is appropriate to the case; whether scientific principles on which it is based are
recognized; whether expert is sufficiently qualified to render the opinion; the kind of
information on which the expert bases his opinion; the role of general consensus in the
scientific community in evaluating the admissibility of expert testimony and limitations
pertaining to the type of opinion an expert can express. 38 In United States, the first step for
determining the standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence was made in 1923, by

35
AIR 1999 SC 3318.
36
Supra note 15.
37
Per Lord Taylor CJ, Stockwell, (1993) 97 Cr App Rep 109.
38
Dr. S.G. Penni, Dr. M.S. Ghadkirekar & Dr. M.P. Kantak, “Utility of Daubert Guidance in India”, JIAFM
(2004) : 26(3) ISSN 097-0973 at p.110.
pronouncement of the leading decision in landmark judgment Frye v. United States.39 Before
1923 the expert testimony was admitted if the court considered that a particular expert is
qualified and on that matter judges are incapable to decide the subject matter in dispute.

In the United States of America it is accepted that Federal Rules of Evidence have
been held to have superseded the test for admissibility of scientific evidence which required
that the technique in question must have been generally accepted as reliable in relevant
scientific community. The trial judge must ensure that any scientific evidence admitted is not
only relevant, but reliable. In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.40 the United
States Supreme Court has specifically issued comprehensive guidelines 41 to the trial judges
for admitting scientific evidence during criminal trials. The judges shall give focus to the
principles and methodology and not to the conclusions that they generate. The court also
cautioned that instead of blanket exclusion of scientific evidence under general acceptance
test, trial judge might use the traditional methods of admissibility of forensic evidence like
probative value substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. This certainly
creates confusion misleading the judges in adopting a particular mode of admitting scientific
evidence. Finally, the task was ended by entrusting trial judges a gatekeeper’s role 42 while
evaluating scientific evidence. The court observed evidentiary reliability would be based
upon scientific validity. The court proposed several factors to be considered by the trial judge
for determining whether a theory or technique is scientific knowledge that will assist the trier
of fact.43 Thus the focus in determining whether to admit scientific evidence should be a
balancing of probativeness, materiality and reliability against tendency of evidence to
unfairly prejudice the other party.44
In Australia the judicial precedents makes it clear that judges adopted the ‘general
acceptance standard’ developed in Frye decision in U.S. it was in Clark v. Ryan45 the court
observed: “Opinion evidence to account for a happening that is described to a witness is
39
293 F 1013 (D.C. Cir 1923).
40
125 L Ed 2d 469 (1993).
41
These guidelines are commonly referred to as Daubert Test or Four Part Reliability Test wherein the United
States Supreme Court concluded that the Federal Rule of Evidence superseded the Frye Rule.
42
Daubert’s case is the first landmark case in which United States Supreme Court laid down proper
comprehensive guidelines for evaluating scientific expert evidence. The term ‘gatekeeper role’ refers that the
duty of the trial judges is not only to determine the relevance of the evidence but also extending their role to fix
its reliability.
43
These factors interalia include: (1) Whether the theory can be or has been tested; (2) Whether the theory or
technique has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) The known or potential rate of error; and
(4) General acceptance in the scientific community.
44
Ariz Trotman v. Valley National Bank of Arizona, App 826 P2d 810.
45
(1960) 103 CLR 486, 501-502.
admissible [sic] only when the happening can be explained by reference to an organized
branch of knowledge in which the witness is an expert.” In fact in Australia the serious
discussion on the admissibility of scientific evidence started since 1984. They started their
journey in this direction from a controversial decision in Chamberlian v. R.46 popularly
known as Dingbaby case. After this decision, a demand was raised for settlement of standard
for admissibility of scientific evidence. This crisis was settled to some extent by the
enactment of Federal Evidence Code 1975 by Australian Parliament. Section 79 of the Code
specifically deals with admissibility of expert opinion.

Recommendations qua Improvising the Standards of Admissibility

In India it has been often observed that the criminal justice system protects the rights
of the guilty and punishes the innocent, thereby pointing that the system has thus become
ineffective and hence needs reform. The Malimath Committee has recommended that with
the goal of predominance of rule of law it has become important to include forensic science
and modern technology for criminal investigation. For this end medico-legal services must be
strengthened so as to enable effective administration of justice by the trial Courts to
appreciate and analyze scientific evidence efficiently. 47 The trial judges are facing many
challenges while dealing with forensic scientific evidence in criminal cases right from the
admissibility of such evidence and determining the legal relevancy of the same to the fact in
issue. The challenges facing scientific evidence qua criminal cases are broadly classified into
four major headings viz., system or control problems, accuracy problems, honesty problems,
and lawyer skills problems.48 The judicial decisions in India would go to show that the trial
courts are reluctant to rely upon the same independently without reliable corroboration.
A deep reading in to the provisions regulating admissibility of scientific evidence would
reveal that Indian courts will normally ask for corroboration if there is any doubt in the
reliability of such evidence. Unless the trial judges are properly educated on the technical and
procedural aspects of scientific evidence and forensic discipline they will be kept in dark
about the rules concerning the admissibility and reliability of forensic scientific evidence. 49

46
(1984) 153 CLR 521.
47
See, Justice V.S. Malimath Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Government of India, Ministry
of Home Affairs, March, 2003, para 22.
48
Richard H. Underwood, Evaluating Scientific and Forensic Evidence, 24 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 149 (2000).
49
C.E. Pratap, Evaluating the Scientific Validity of Forensic Evidence in Criminal Trials: Issues and Challenges,
(2018) 4 MLJ (CRL) pp.5-13.
A techno-legalistic approach in analyzing and appreciating the scientific evidence will
certainly ensure the admissibility in a proper perspective during criminal trials.

There is a general belief that scientific evidence is weak evidence. It is not so. In fact,
scientific evidence is substantive evidence, better than oral evidence because it is objective
evidence; it is verifiable, unbiased and demonstrable. 50 The misconception that scientific
evidence is weak evidence has cropped in because of the improper handling of the scientific
evidence in the earlier stages of its induction. The credibility of forensic scientific evidence
always depends on the reliability of the test conducted. The concepts of reliability,
diagnosticity and probativity have distinct meanings and are all important in any discussion
of the value of forensic science evidence. 51 For the purpose of trial, forensic evidence cannot
be separated from the testimony of forensic experts. The probative value of forensic evidence
depends on the application of technical forensic skills by an expert. The primary
responsibility for ensuring the reliability of forensic results almost vested with the individual
scientist or his laboratory.

Conclusion

From the foregoing discussion it is clear that there exist a legislative vacuum in the
law relating to admissibility standards of scientific expert evidence in India. In the wake of
recent developments in science and technology we cannot ignore the evidence of an expert in
a criminal trial which is presented before the Court involving novel forensic methods. The
judicial discretion vested upon the trial judges in admitting expert evidence is a major lacuna
where the Courts are completely kept in dark on matters of science. The Courts are finding it
difficult to assess the reliability of the techniques that are associated with the scientific
evidence. It is therefore need of the hour a comprehensive law has to be brought in to regulate
the scientific expert evidence and its admissibility in trials.

50
B.R.Sharma, ‘Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials’, (Universal Law Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
New Delhi, 5th Edn., 2014), p.106.
51
Koehler, Jonathan, “If the Shoe Fits They Might Acquit: The Value of Forensic Science Testimony” (2011).
Faculty Working Papers. Paper 23, available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworking
papers/23. (Last accessed on 06.12.2014 at 10.35 hrs IST).