Judicial Interpretation Of Forensic Evidence
Courts rely on forensic evidence—such as fingerprints, DNA profiles, ballistic reports, medical evidence, and scientific expert opinions—to ascertain facts that require scientific analysis. However, forensic evidence is not blindly accepted; judges evaluate its credibility, accuracy, chain of custody, scientific validity, and corroboration before relying on it.
Below are six major cases illustrating how courts analyze and interpret forensic evidence in criminal trials.
1. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263
Subject: Narco-analysis, polygraph test, and brain-mapping (forensic psychology)
Key Judicial Principles:
The Supreme Court held that involuntary narco-analysis, polygraph tests, and brain electrical activation profiling (BEAP) violate Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination).
These tests cannot be admitted as evidence unless conducted with the free consent of the accused, and even then the results are not standalone proof.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Court analyzed the scientific reliability of these tests and concluded that:
They are not fully reliable.
Statements derived from altered consciousness cannot be treated as truthful without corroboration.
Thus, forensic psychology is secondary aid, not substantive evidence.
Importance:
This case sets strong limits on invasive forensic procedures and highlights that scientific evidence must respect constitutional rights.
2. State of Maharashtra v. Damu, (2000) 6 SCC 269
Subject: DNA fingerprinting evidence
Key Judicial Principles:
The Court recognized DNA evidence as highly accurate and scientifically valid.
However, it emphasized that the chain of custody, sample integrity, and proper laboratory procedures must be established.
Judicial Interpretation:
DNA evidence is corroborative, not absolutely conclusive.
Courts must verify:
How the samples were collected
How they were sealed
When they were transferred to the laboratory
Whether contamination was possible
Importance:
This case forms the basis for the Indian courts’ modern approach to DNA reliability.
3. Mukesh & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Nirbhaya Case), (2017) 6 SCC 1
Subject: DNA profiling, medical evidence, CCTV, and digital forensics
Key Judicial Principles:
The Court held that DNA evidence linking the accused to the victim was scientifically unassailable.
It emphasized that forensic evidence is not “opinion” but a mathematical and biological fact when properly obtained.
Judicial Interpretation:
DNA matches were supported by:
swabs
blood samples
semen samples
clothing analysis
The Court gave forensic evidence maximum weight due to:
impeccable chain of custody
accredited laboratory testing
corroborating medical and eyewitness evidence
Importance:
A landmark case affirming strong probative value of forensic DNA evidence.
4. Ram Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1975 SC 1727
Subject: Medical evidence vs. eyewitness accounts
Key Judicial Principles:
Medical/forensic findings should be used to test the credibility of witnesses, not override them.
When medical evidence contradicts eyewitness testimony in a material way, courts must prefer the scientific evidence.
Judicial Interpretation:
Medical evidence showed the injuries recorded were inconsistent with the prosecution's version.
The Court acquitted the accused due to this contradiction.
Importance:
This case established the principle that medical evidence can disprove unreliable testimonies, strengthening its role in judicial reasoning.
5. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116
Subject: Forensic toxicology (poisoning case)
Key Judicial Principles:
In poisoning cases, courts need:
Proof of poison administered
Proof that death resulted from poison
Proof that the accused had the opportunity to administer the poison
Forensic toxicology reports must be clear, conclusive, and directly linked to the cause of death.
Judicial Interpretation:
Chemical analysis report did not detect poison, so the prosecution's theory collapsed.
Circumstantial evidence alone was not enough.
Importance:
Leading authority on how courts evaluate toxicology reports and the burden of proof in poisoning cases.
6. State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh, (2002) 3 SCC 234
Subject: Ballistics and firearm evidence
Key Judicial Principles:
Ballistic expert opinion must show:
The bullet was fired from a particular weapon to a reasonable degree of certainty.
The weapon was in possession of the accused.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Court emphasized:
Matching rifling marks
Test-firing results
Recovery of weapon
Ballistic analysis report
The expert opinion was accepted because it was logical, scientific, and consistent with other evidence.
Importance:
This case illustrates how courts assess ballistic examination and the credibility of expert testimony.
Judicial Principles Derived from These Cases
1. Forensic evidence must be scientifically reliable
Courts assess the methodology, accuracy, and acceptance of scientific techniques.
2. Chain of custody is crucial
If samples are mishandled, the evidence becomes unreliable.
3. Forensic evidence must corroborate other evidence
Courts rarely convict based on scientific evidence alone, except when extremely strong (e.g., DNA).
4. Expert testimony is advisory, not binding
Judges may accept or reject expert findings based on logic and context.
5. Constitutional rights override scientific techniques
No scientific method can justify violation of personal liberty (Selvi case).
RELATED Blog
comments