Mandatory Forensic Investigation: Feasibility In India
Mandatory Forensic Investigation: Feasibility in India
What is Mandatory Forensic Investigation?
Mandatory forensic investigation refers to the legal requirement that forensic examination or analysis must be conducted in certain cases to gather scientific evidence for the investigation and prosecution of crimes. It may include medical examinations, post-mortem, DNA analysis, fingerprinting, chemical tests, ballistic reports, digital forensics, etc.
Importance and Feasibility in the Indian Context
Forensic evidence is critical in establishing objective facts, corroborating witness testimony, and strengthening prosecution or defense.
Mandatory forensic investigation helps reduce wrongful convictions and acquittals by relying on scientific proof.
Feasibility concerns include availability of forensic labs, trained personnel, infrastructure, procedural compliance, and legal mandates.
India's rapid digital growth and increasing crime complexity demand robust forensic processes.
However, resource constraints, delayed reports, lack of standardization, and judicial delays affect feasibility.
Legal Framework Supporting Mandatory Forensic Investigation in India
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), Sections 53, 54, 164, 173 — mandate medical examination, recording of confessions, and investigation.
Indian Evidence Act, Sections 45, 46, 65A, 65B — govern expert opinion and electronic evidence.
The Medical Jurisprudence Act — prescribes medical examination guidelines.
Supreme Court and High Courts have emphasized the importance of forensic evidence in various judgments.
Case Law Analysis on Mandatory Forensic Investigation and Its Feasibility in India
1. Balkrishna vs. State of Maharashtra (1974)
Citation: AIR 1974 SC 2572
Facts:
The case involved delayed medical examination of a rape victim.
Holding:
The Supreme Court underscored that medical examination of the victim must be conducted immediately to collect vital evidence and prevent contamination or loss.
It was held that failure to conduct timely forensic examination hampers justice.
Significance:
Established mandatory and immediate forensic examination in sexual assault cases to ensure the feasibility of evidence collection.
2. Ratan Singh vs. State of Punjab (1973)
Citation: AIR 1973 SC 1613
Facts:
Case concerning bodily injuries alleged in a criminal case.
Holding:
The Court held that medical examination is indispensable in cases involving injuries, and delay affects the probative value of forensic evidence.
Such examinations must be carried out by qualified experts promptly.
Significance:
Mandatory forensic investigations ensure reliability and fairness in adjudicating injury-related offenses.
3. State of Punjab vs. Major Singh (1967)
Citation: AIR 1967 SC 63
Facts:
The accused alleged intoxication and sought to rely on forensic evidence to establish mental state.
Holding:
The Supreme Court held that where intoxication or poisoning is in question, forensic tests (chemical or medical) are mandatory to prove or disprove the claim.
Significance:
Recognizes mandatory forensic testing as crucial in mental condition assessments affecting criminal liability.
4. Dr. Subhash Sureshchandra Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra (2018)
Citation: AIR 2018 SC 3476
Facts:
The case dealt with the scope of forensic investigation in medico-legal cases and responsibilities of doctors.
Holding:
The Supreme Court emphasized doctors' duty to conduct thorough medico-legal examinations and provide accurate forensic reports.
It recognized the necessity of timely and scientifically accurate forensic investigation for justice.
Significance:
Strengthens the mandate for forensic examination feasibility via institutional accountability.
5. Lillu @ Deepak & Ors. vs. State of Haryana (2020)
Citation: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Facts:
The case involved disputed forensic evidence related to narcotic substances.
Holding:
The court emphasized that forensic reports must be scientifically credible, timely, and capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny.
Delay or negligence in forensic analysis can lead to miscarriage of justice.
Significance:
Highlights practical challenges in forensic feasibility and urges systemic reforms to improve forensic infrastructure.
6. Vijay Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2008)
Citation: AIR 2008 SC 2157
Facts:
Accused refused to undergo mandatory forensic examination during investigation.
Holding:
The Supreme Court ruled that refusal or obstruction of forensic examination invites adverse inference against the accused.
Mandated cooperation in forensic processes as integral to fair investigation.
Significance:
Reinforces mandatory forensic investigations as non-negotiable and legally enforceable.
Challenges Affecting Feasibility in India
Infrastructure Deficit: Limited number of forensic labs relative to the population and crime volume.
Skilled Personnel: Shortage of trained forensic experts and medical examiners.
Delay in Reports: Overburdened labs cause delays, weakening evidentiary value.
Standardization: Need for uniform protocols to maintain integrity and chain of custody.
Judicial Awareness: Courts increasingly stress forensic evidence but require better integration with investigative agencies.
Conclusion
Mandatory forensic investigation is legally recognized and critical for effective justice delivery in India. The Supreme Court and High Courts have repeatedly emphasized its importance in timely, scientifically valid, and comprehensive investigation. However, feasibility challenges—like infrastructural limitations and procedural delays—must be addressed through policy reforms, enhanced training, and modernization of forensic infrastructure.
RELATED Blog
0 comments