The Role of Forensic Evidence in Trial: Challenges, Case Studies, and Reforms
Abstract:
Forensic evidence has become a cornerstone of modern criminal justice systems, offering
scientific credibility to legal proceedings and aiding in the pursuit of truth. However, the misuse,
misinterpretation, and overreliance on forensic evidence have emerged as significant contributors
to wrongful convictions. The challenges in forensic evidence are multifaceted, encompassing
issues of reliability, interpretation, and procedural standardization. While DNA evidence has
revolutionized the criminal justice system with its precision, other forensic techniques, such as
bite mark analysis and hair microscopy, have been debunked due to their lack of scientific
validity. Compounding these issues are cognitive biases and overstatements by forensic experts,
which can mislead the court. The absence of universal standards for forensic laboratories and
methods further exacerbates these vulnerabilities, creating inconsistencies in the application of
forensic science. Case studies highlight the devastating impact of flawed forensic evidence on
individuals and the justice system. Various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court are discussed
highlighting how forensic evidence affecting the decision of the court.
To address these challenges, this paper advocates for comprehensive reform strategies. Scientific
validation of forensic techniques is paramount; methods used in criminal cases must undergo
peer-reviewed testing to establish their reliability. Enhanced training and certification for
forensic practitioners can reduce errors and ensure adherence to best practices. Legal safeguards,
such as the Daubert standard for admissibility of expert testimony, are crucial in maintaining the
integrity of forensic evidence presented in court. Independent oversight bodies can provide
accountability and periodic audits of forensic laboratories to uphold procedural standards.
Additionally, post-conviction reviews should be strengthened to allow re-evaluation of cases
where questionable forensic evidence played a pivotal role.
While forensic science remains an invaluable tool in delivering justice, its limitations and
potential for misuse necessitate a critical and reformative approach. By addressing these
systemic flaws, the criminal justice system can mitigate the risks of wrongful convictions and
bolster public trust in the integrity of forensic evidence. This paper underscores the need for a
balanced application of forensic science, combining rigorous scientific inquiry with robust legal
safeguards to achieve a fair and equitable justice system.
This exploration emphasizes that safeguarding against wrongful convictions is not merely a
matter of refining forensic methodologies but also of fostering a culture of accountability,
transparency, and continual improvement. The proposed reforms aim to harmonize the scientific
potential of forensic evidence with the ethical imperatives of justice, ensuring its use as a tool for
truth rather than an instrument of error.
Introduction
Definition of forensic evidence
Forensic evidence involves the efficacy of information that has been scientifically generated for a
particular case, the validity of which is grounded in past experiences in similar cases as
evidenced in the forensic literature. 1 Forensic evidence refers to facts or opinions proffered in a
criminal case that have been generated or supported by the use of one, typically more than one,
of the corpus of forensic sciences routinely used in criminal prosecutions.2
Legal framework
The section 2(a) of The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 defines "measurements" as
including finger-impressions and foot-print impressions. The Act under section 3 provides for
taking of measurements of convicted persons by police officers. The section 4 of the Act deals
with taking of measurements of non-convicted persons. The Act has been replaced by the
Criminal Procedure Identification Act
Scientific validity of fingerprints
Terrance makes strong arguments that forensic evidence are scientific 3
Constitutionality of taking fingerprints and footprints
State of up v sunil4
1
Pg 4, Terrence book
2
Pg 50 terrence book
3
352 terrence
4
(2017) 14 SCC 516
Cases considering fingerprints as evidence
Flaws in collection of fingerprints
Mohd Aman v. State of Rajasthan5
In this case, the High Court upheld the conviction of the accused only on the basis of his
fingerprints found on the brass jug in the house of the deceased. The prosecution could not prove
that the seized article (brass jar containing the fingerprints of the accused) were not - or could not
be - tampered with before it reached the Bureau for examination. The court noted:
After careful perusal of the evidence adduced in proof of the above circumstance we
notice a glaring missing link, in that, the prosecution has failed to establish that the seized
articles were not - or could not be - tampered with before it reached the Bureau for
examination. Though evidence was led to prove that after seizure the articles were
packaged and. then sealed, no evidence was led to indicate what was the mark given in
the seals and whether the Bureau received the packages with the marked seals intact.
Indeed, even the contemporaneous letters exchanged between them (Ext. P.59 and P.60)
do not throw any light on this aspect of the matter. Rather, other circumstances appearing
on record make the prosecution case doubtful in this regard : first, the articles were kept
in the police station for five days without any justifiable reason, secondly the
Investigating Officer (P.W. 20) admitted that the seal, mark of which was put on the
articles, was with him since the time of seizure and lastly his letter (Ext. P.39) forwarding
the seized articles to the Bureau contains admittedly, an overwriting as regards the date of
its writing/dispatch and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for the same. Apart
from the above missing link and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the same,
there is another circumstance which also cast a serious mistrust as to genuineness of the
evidence. Even though the specimen finger prints of Mohd. Aman had to be taken on a
number of occasions at the behest of the Bureau, they were never taken before or under
the order of a Magistrate in accordance with Section 5 of the Identification of Prisoners
Act. It is true that under Section 4 thereof police is competent to take finger prints of the
accused but to dispel any suspicion as to its bonafides or to eliminate the possibility of
5
(1997) 10 SCC 44
fabrication of evidence it was eminently desirable that they were taken before or under
the order of a Magistrate. The other related infirmity from which the prosecution case
suffers is that the brass jug, production of which would have been the best evidence in
proof of the claim of its seizure and subsequent examination by the Bureau, was not
produced and exhibited during trial - for reasons best known to the prosecution and
unknown to the Court. For the foregoing discussion we are unable to sustain the
convictions of Mohd. Aman.
Hari om v state of up
In this case there was absence of method applied to collect the fingerprints from the glasses
allegedly used by the accused. The court noted that:
“If the fingerprints were picked from the glasses there is nothing to indicate what method
was applied to lift the fingerprints from the glasses allegedly used by the accused when
they were offered water. What the record indicates is that some photographs were sent to
the office of the Director, Fingerprint Bureau, Lucknow and nothing more. It does not
show the procedure adopted for taking such photographs, and whether such method is a
trusted and tested one. The concerned person was not examined, who could have thrown
light on these issues. The record also does not show whether those glasses by themselves
were made available for appropriate analysis. There is, thus, no clarity in the process
adopted by the investigating machinery.6
The court in this case acquitted the accused, on the ground that the fingerprint expert’s opinion,
even if accepted, would could not have been the sole basis of conviction.
Manoj kumar v state of m.p.7
The defence councel relies upon hari om case to argue the possibility of procedural irregularity.
The appellant’s arguments questioning the credibility of this part, on the ground of delay in the
report, the prints being chance prints, lack of elimination prints, or the crime scene not being
shown to have been secured, etc, are insubstantial and are rejected.8
6
Para 32 Hari om v state of up (2021) 4 SCC 345
7
(2023) 2 SCC 353
8
Para 130
State Of T.N vs T.Thulasingam 1994 Supp (2) SCC 405
69. The two police officers who took the fingerprints were Head Constables, PWs 351 and 352.
These witnesses were never cross-examined. The taking of fingerprints is an act which is
ministerial in nature. The question is of identity of the accused persons. It appears from the
judgment of the trial court that the accused persons admitted their fingerprints. Had there been
any cross-examination, it would have come out as to how they were authorised to take the
fingerprints. Since the taking of fingerprints by the two PWs was never questioned before the
trial court, the reliance by the High Court on Section 2(b) of the Identification of Prisoners Act,
1920 is erroneous.
BA Umesh v Registrar General-
The evidence of fingerprints collected as per Karnataka police manual was held valid. 9
Prakash vs State Of Karnataka 2014 AIR SCW 2354,
47. The Karnataka High Court has taken the view[23] that it is not incumbent upon a police
officer to take the assistance of a Magistrate to obtain the fingerprints of an accused and that the
provisions of the Identification of Prisoners Act are not mandatory in this regard. However, the
issue is not one of the provisions being mandatory or not – the issue is whether the manner of
taking fingerprints is suspicious or not. In this case, we do not know if Prakash’s fingerprint was
taken on 7th November, 1990 as alleged by him or later as contended by the Investigating
Officer, or the circumstances in which it was taken or even the manner in which it was taken. It
is to obviate any such suspicion that this Court has held it to be eminently desirable that
fingerprints are taken before or under the order of a Magistrate. As far as this case is concerned,
the entire exercise of Prakash’s fingerprint identification is shrouded in mystery and we cannot
give any credence to it.
48. We are also surprised that though a blood-stained crowbar was seized from the place of
occurrence and according to the Investigating Officer, a blood-stained steel rod was recovered at
the instance of Prakash, neither of these material objects was sent for fingerprint examination.
The investigation was conducted in a rather unconcerned manner, to say the least.
49. Learned counsel for Prakash made two subsidiary submissions, namely, that the photographs
taken by Ramachandra of the scene of incident do not show the existence of the plastic cover
9
B.A. Umesh v Registrar General (2011) 3 SCC 85
Exh. P-18 and therefore, according to him, the plastic cover was planted subsequently. We are
not prepared to accept this submission because it is nobody’s case that Ramachandra took
photographs of everything or every item found in the residence of Gangamma.
50. It was also submitted that when Nanaiah took Exh. P-18 with him, no mahazar or panchnama
was drawn up and nobody was told that the plastic cover bearing the inscription ‘Canara Bank’
was taken away by him for examination. This is true and we are of the view that this was not
permissible and that there should have been some record of the plastic cover having been taken
by Nanaiah, especially since the Investigating Officer was present at the spot. On the other hand,
if the plastic cover was taken away by Nanaiah without the knowledge of the Investigating
Officer and right under his nose, then it makes the position even worse for the prosecution. Be
that as it may, we do not doubt the bona fides of Nanaiah since, in his testimony, he clearly stated
that he had examined nine articles and one of them was the plastic cover bearing the inscription
‘Canara Bank’ and that while carrying an object containing prints, there is chance of damage to
the prints if the object is not handled properly. It is perhaps to avoid the possible damage that he
took the plastic cover with him.
51. Our attention was drawn to the Karnataka Police Manual and it appears that Nanaiah
followed the guidelines laid down therein and perhaps acted in an overly cautious manner.
Guideline No. 1543 provides as follows:
“1543. The opinion of the finger print expert is of paramount importance in the investigation of
various crimes. The following instructions should be followed regarding chance finger and foot
prints and their developments, preservation of the scene, method of packing and other
matters:
52. Guideline 1544 in the Manual contains various provisions and clause
(iv) and clause (v) are relevant for our purposes. They read as follows:
“1544. i) to iii) xxx
iv) If latent prints are found on portable articles they should be seized under a detailed
panchanama duly packed and labelled and sent to the Finger Print Bureau with a police officer
with instructions regarding the care of the package during the journey.
v) In sending the articles containing latent prints to the Bureau, proper attention must be given to
their package. The following essential points should be borne in mind:
• It should be ensured that no portion of the article where prints may be found should get
into contact with anything else and
• The articles should be securely packed in a suitable container.”
Clause (iv) was clearly not followed when Nanaiah took the plastic cover along with him and
this is an extremely serious lapse. However, we give him the benefit of doubt and assume that it
is perhaps with clause (v) in mind that Nanaiah took the plastic cover along with him.
53. While we completely disapprove of the manner in which Exh. P-18 was taken away by
Nanaiah (and the Investigating Officer did nothing about it), the case of the prosecution does not
get strengthened even if a valid procedure was followed, since there is nothing on record to show
that the ‘admitted’ fingerprints on Exh. P-20 were those of Prakash which could be compared
with the fingerprints on Exh. P-18 and the enlarged photograph being Exh. P-19.
54. Assuming that Exh. P-20 was a valid piece of evidence validly obtained, there is no
explanation why it was kept by the Investigating Officer from 14th November, 1990 till 9th
January, 1991 when it was received by Nanaiah. The Karnataka Police Manual highlights the
importance of keeping safe an article containing fingerprints. In view of its importance, Nanaiah
did not trust anyone with the plastic cover bearing the inscription ‘Canara Bank’ [Exh. P-18] and
carefully took it along with him to avoid its getting damaged by getting into contact with
anything else. On the other hand, we have the Investigating Officer keeping Exh. P-20 with him
for almost two months and in circumstances that seem unclear. We cannot rule out the possibility
of Exh. P-20 getting damaged due to careless handling.
55. We are of the opinion that there is no fingerprint evidence worth it linking Prakash to the
murder of Gangamma.
Sadashio Mundaji Bhalerao vs State of Maharashtra 10
An attempt was made to connect the body of the deceased with that of Dilip, the prosecution led
evidence of P.W.22 who took the finger prints of the deceased body. P.W.22 took the finger prints
of the deceased on 10.11.1987 though he admitted that the prints were not visible and these
10
AIR 2007 SC 1028
finger prints were sought to be corroborated with the receipt which was produced by P.W.5
which also bears the finger print of the deceased Dilip. For this the prosecution has also led
evidence of P.W.10, the scribe of the receipt and P.W.11. Both the witnesses turned hostile.
Consequently, it is very doubtful how could the receipt given to the purchaser was with the seller
i.e. Dilip which was scribed by P.W.10 and it was said to be in possession of P.W.5, the brother of
the deceased and the explanation was that his mother gave it to him. The thumb impression of
Dilip in the said receipt was sought to be connected with the finger prints of the deceased taken
by P.W.22. P.W.22 obtained the same with spoon method of right hand thumb impression and left
hand thumb impression of the deceased which was in highly decomposed condition, dermis and
epidermis of fingers were not found. Firstly the thumb impression on the receipt was of Dilip has
not been proved as P.W.10 turned hostile. However, the prosecution tried to connect the body of
the deceased by leading evidence of handwriting expert, P.W.23. P.W.22 was produced by the
prosecution to show that he has taken the finger prints of the deceased through spoon method and
that finger prints had been produced by the prosecution and P.W.23, the handwriting expert has
been examined. P.W.23 has of course deposed that he has sent his report and as per his finding
the thumb impression on the receipt and that of the dead body taken by P.W.22 are of the same
person. But the question is whether the finger prints obtained on the receipt on sale of a cow by
the deceased Dilip bears the thumb impression of Dilip or not. Since P.W.10 has denied that the
thumb impression of Dilip was taken in his presence and since the receipt produced by the
prosecution bearing the thumb impression of deceased Dilip is not proved, therefore, the
comparison of the finger prints of the deceased with that of the thumb impression is of no
consequence. More so, the brother of the deceased, Paratya and his wife- Shobha have also
declined to identify the dead body. Therefore, under these circumstances, the prosecution has
failed to establish that the dead body was that of the deceased, Dilip. As such, this circumstantial
evidence is also not of worth that it can connect the accused persons with the commission of the
crime.
Ashish Jain vs Makrand Singh AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 546
Another incriminating factor as argued by the counsel for the complainant is that the fingerprints
of Accused No. 1 were found upon the tea tumblers found at the scene of the crime. We do not
agree with the conclusion of the High Court that the fingerprint samples of the accused (used for
comparison with the fingerprints on the tumblers) were illegally obtained, being in contravention
of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, inasmuch as they were obtained without a
magisterial order. Importantly, Section 4 refers to the power of a police officer to direct taking of
measurements, including fingerprints:
A bare reading of these rules makes it amply clear that a police officer is permitted to take the
photographs and measurements of the accused. Fingerprints can be taken under the directions of
the police officer. As held by this Court in Sonvir (supra), although Section 4 mentions that the
police officer is competent to take measurements of the accused, but to dispel doubts as to its
bona fides and to rule out the fabrication of evidence, it is eminently desirable that they were
taken before or under the order of a Magistrate. However, the aforesaid observations cannot be
held to mean that this Court observed that under Section 4, police officers are not entitled to take
fingerprints until the order is taken from a Magistrate. If certain suspicious circumstances do
arise from a particular case relating to lifting of fingerprints, in order to dispel or ward off such
suspicious circumstances, it would be in the interest of justice to get orders from the Magistrate.
Thus there cannot be any hard and fast rule that in every case, there should be a magisterial order
for lifting the fingerprints of the accused.
Thus, it cannot be held that the fingerprint evidence was illegally obtained merely due to the
absence of a magisterial order authorizing the same.
Nagaraja v State of Karnataka11
In this case the police officer did not take permission of the Magistrate for taking fingerprints
and the High Court relied on the evidence. The supreme court found that the high court has erred
in considering the evidence. The judgment of the High court was reversed and conviction was set
aside. The court relied on Mohd Amar’s judgment.
Sonvir v NCT of Delhi
Issue was whether fingerprints collected without the order of the Mgistrate are admissible or not.
Th court interpreted section 4 and 5 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. The court relied
on Mohd Amar judgment to hold that :
The power given to the Police Officer to ask a person arrested to give his measurements
is a substantive power. This power is hedged by the condition that such measurement has
“to be taken in the prescribed manner” if there is any prescribed manner that cannot be
11
(2020) 2 SCC 257
breached by such Police Officer. Taking of the measurements in the prescribed manner is
a procedural part of the Section which does not affect the substantive power of the Police
Officer to ask an accused who is under arrest to give his measurement.
Start after sonvir
