History and development of Forensic Science in India

The application of science and technology to the detection and investigation of crime and administration of justice is
not new to India. Although our ancestors did not know forensic science in its present form, scientific methods in one
way or the other seem to have been followed in the investigation of crime. Its detailed reference is found in
Kautilya's `Arthashastra,' which was written about 2300 years ago. Indians studied various patterns of the papillary
lines, thousands of years ago. It is presumed that they knew about the persistency and individuality of fingerprints,
which they used as signatures. Even Mr. KM Kata, a frequent contributor to `Nature', stated that the Chinese records
proved the use of fingerprints in an ancient kingdom of southern India. The Indians knew for long that the
handprints, known as the Tarija', were inimitable. The use of fingerprints as signatures by illiterate people in India,
introduced centuries ago, was considered by some people as ceremonial only, till it was scientifically proved that
identification from fingerprints was infallible.

Chemical Examiner's Laboratories

During the nineteenth century, when the cases of death due to poisoning posed a problem to the law enforcement
agencies, a need was felt for isolating, detecting and estimating various poisons absorbed in the human system. The
first Chemical Examiner's Laboratory was, therefore, set up for this purpose at the then Madras Presidency, under
the Department of Health, during 1849. Later, similar laboratories were set up at Calcutta (1853), followed by one
each at Agra (1864) and Bombay (1870). These laboratories were equipped to handle toxicological analysis of
viscera, biological analysis of stains of blood, semen, etc. and chemical analysis of food, drugs, and various
excisable materials to provide scientific support to the criminal justice delivery system within their limited means.
These laboratories also provided analytical facilities to the neighboring States and Union Territories.

Anthropometric Bureau

While some progress was made in the identification of poisons, the identification of people, specifically criminals,
was still being done in a rather haphazard manner. Policemen would try to memorize convict's face so that they
could recognize him if he got involved in another crime later. With the introduction of Photography, the Criminal
Investigation Department (CID) maintained records of every known criminal including a detailed description of his
appearance. With the invention of Bertillon's anthropometricsystem in 1878, India, along with the other countries of
the world, adapted Bertillon's system of personnel identification and thus an Anthropometric Bureau, for
maintaining anthropornetric records of criminals, was established in 1892 at Calcutta.

Finger Print Bureau

William Herschel, the Collector of the District of Hooghly (Bengal) found that markings on the fingertips of a
person never changed during his lifetime. Herschel applied his knowledge and skill in devising a system of
registration of finger or thumb impressions of native contractors to safeguard the interests of the Government against
the repudiation of contracts by them. Thereafter, he extended his registration procedure to prison regulations for
identifying convicted criminals. In 1877, Herschel sought the consent of his superior officers in putting his ideas into
practice, but did not succeed. In 1891, Edward Richard Henry's appointment, the Inspector General of Police in
Bengal, introduced the thumb impressions in the record slips, containing anthropometric data, to avoid wrong
identification. Long before 1897, he introduced maintenance of duplicate criminal records with impressions of 10
fingers separately.

Henry employed few selected Indian police officers, viz. Khan Bahadur Azizul Huq and Rai Bahadur Hem Chandra
Bose to work under his general supervision till the classification was evolved, which remains the basic system even
today. It was Khan Bahadur Azizul Huq who evolved a mathematical formula to supplement Henry's idea of sorting
slips in 1024 pigeon holes, based on fingerprint patterns. Rai Bahadur Hem Chandra Bose made further contribution
to the fingerprint science by evolving an extended system of sub-classification, a telegraphic code for finger
impression and a system of singledigit classification.

Henry approached the Government to seek approval for replacing the anthropometric data by fingerprints for the
identification of habitual criminals. Government readily agreed, and the first fingerprint bureau in the world was
officially declared open at Calcutta in July 1897, although the collection of record slips had started a few years
earlier. Thus, the personnel identification solely on the basis of fingerprints commenced in India.

Department of Explosives

When the use of explosives for subversive activities became common, it was found necessary to detect the causes of
explosion, either accidental or intentional. The foundation of the Department of Explosives was laid when the first
chief inspector of explosives was appointed in the year 1898, with his headquarters at Nagpur. Later, five regional
offices at Calcutta, Bombay, Agra, Madras and Gwalior, and three suboffices at Shivkashi. Gomia and Asallsol were
opened. They developed competence to provide scientific clues in respect of explosives as well as the possible
causes of explosions. Their expertise came handy in police investigations in the crimes related to explosions and for
evolving various provisions under the Explosives & Petroleum Act.

Government Examiner of Questioned Document, Shimla

The British Government of Bengal felt the necessity of identifying the handwritings on the secret documents
connected with the Indian independence movement and, therefore, created the post of Government Handwriting
Expert of Bengal. Mr. CR Hardless, the then Superintendent in the A.G.'s office in Bengal, was appointed to this
post in 1904. This setup was shifted to Shimla in the year 1906 and was placed under the control of the Director,
CID. A post of Handwriting Expert for the Government of India was created and Mr. CR Hardless was appointed to
this post. He was replaced by Mr. F Brewester, a police officer from the West Bengal CID, and was designated as
the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD). At first, the work of this office was mainly confined
to the identification of writings on secret documents. Later, as the application of this branch of science was felt in
many other cases, the services of this office were thrown open to criminal as well as civil court cases. During the
World War II, this organization took up the additional work of secret censorship, including the detection of invisible
writings and training of military personnel in this field of science.

Serologist to the Government of India

When the science of examining human blood developed in India, it became possible to examine blood and seminal
stains in criminal investigations. Realising the importance of Forensic Serology, an institute named as Serology
Department' was established in Calcutta in 1910. The head of this institute was designated as Imperial Serologist to
the Government of India. Dr. Hankin helped in establishing this department. Though the scientific techniques for
serological examination were at the infancy stage, this institute provided valuable scientific support by analyzing
biological materials for crime investigations. After independence, the department was renamed as `Office of the
Serologist and Chemical Examiner to the Government of India'.

Footprint Section of Criminal Investigation Department

During the year 1915, a Footprint Section was established under the CID, Government of Bengal, which helped the
police authorities to identify criminals through the examination of footprints collected from the scene of crime. SM
Edwardes recorded the following instance in his book `Bombay City Police' showing the use of the footmarks in
police work. `On several occasions, Indian constables distinguished themselves by acts of bravery and examples of
professional acumen. The detection of a burglary in the showroom of an English firm was entirely due to the action
of a Hindu constable, who noticed on a piece of furniture the marks of a foot possessing certain peculiarities, which
he remembered having seen before in the foot of an ex-convict.'

Note Forgery Section in Criminal Investigation Department

During 1917, a Note Forgery Section was set up under the CID, Government of Bengal, to undertake the
examination of forged currency notes. The Revenue Department also started its own laboratory for identification of
opium and narcotics, liquor analysis and estimation of purity levels of precious metals like gold, silver, etc.
Similarly, Government Mint and Security Printing Departments at Nasik also established their own laboratories for
detecting cases of counterfeit and forged currency notes.

Ballistics Laboratory

In 1930, an Arms Expert was appointed and a small ballistic laboratory was set up under the Calcutta Police to deal
with the examination of firearms. As the menace of firearms grew, other State CIDs also established small ballistics
laboratories to help them in the criminal investigation.

Scientific Sections in the Criminal Investigation Department

During 1936, a Scientific Section was set up under the CID in Bengal and facilities were created for examination of
bullets, cartridge cases, firearms, etc., used in committing crime. Few other states also started scientific sections in
their CID, where investigations on fingerprints, footprints, firearms and questioned documents were also carried out.
Gradually, more and more branches of science were embraced and the laboratories gained maturity over the years.

State Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta

The first state forensic science laboratory in India was established in the year 1952 at Calcutta. This laboratory
became fully operational in the year 1953. The Medico legal Section of the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory was
also transferred to this laboratory. During the year 1955, a small unit of Physics was established in the West Bengal
State Forensic Science Laboratory to deal with various physical examinations of exhibits encountered in crime
investigation. During the year 1957, the Physics unit developed into a fullfledged Physics Section. In the same year,
the Footprint and the Note Forgery Sections of Criminal Investigation Department were transferred to this laboratory
and in the following year General Chemistry Section of the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory was also transferred to
this laboratory. Thus the first multidisciplinary forensic science laboratory came into existence in the country.

Central Finger Print Bureau

On the recommendations of the Royal Police Commission of 1902,03, the first Central Finger Print Bureau (CFPB)
in India was established in 1905 at Shimla. It, however, suffered a setback and was abolished in 1922 as a result of
retrenchment proposals of the Inchape Committee. The CFPB restarted functioning from 1955 in Delhi under the
administrative control of Intelligence Bureau (IB). The major role envisaged for CFPB was to coordinate the
activities of State FPBx in tracing/locating interstate criminals. During August 1956, the CFPB was shifted to
Calcutta and remained under the administrative control of IB. During September 1973, it was transferred to the
Central Bureau of Investigation and during July 1986, the administrative control of the CFPB was transferred to the
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and was again shifted to New Delhi.

Central Detective Training School at Calcutta

CDTS, Calcutta, a premier detective training school in India, was established during 1956 and was located (in the
same premises) with the CFPB, Calcutta. The aim of establishing such a school was to impart training in scientific
investigation of crimes like drug abuse, terrorism, explosion, crime against women, investigation of road accidents
and enforcement of traffic laws, etc.

Central Forensic Science Laboratories

The first Central Forensic Science Laboratory was established at Calcutta during 1957. To begin with, this
laboratory was organized into four basic disciplines viz. Forensic Physics, Forensic Chemistry, Forensic Biology
and Forensic Ballistics. For application of nuclear methods of analysis to criminal investigation, the Neutron
Activation Analysis Unit of CFSL, Calcutta was set up in 1970 at the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay.
During the year 1965, the second central forensic science laboratory was established at Hyderabad, The CFSL,
Hyderabad initially established analytical facilities in the disciplines of Forensic Physics, Forensic Chemistry and
Forensic Biology. The Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, was established, in the year 1933 at
Lahore was shifted to Chandigarh during 1961. Over the years many full fledged forensic science laboratories were
established in various states.

Central Forensic Institute, Calcutta

With the establishment of CDTS and CFSL, (later on GEQD also) in the same premises, under the control of
Intelligence Bureau, the whole set up was named as the Central Forensic Institute (CFI), Calcutta. A post of
Commandant was created during 1958 to look after the overall functioning of all these establishments, which had
different roles but with the common larger goal of providing appropriate scientific inputs to the criminal
investigation process and administration of criminal justice in the country.

CDTS at Hyderabad & Chandigarh

The Central Detective Training School, Hyderabad was established in 1964, on the pattern of the CDTS, Calcutta,
followed by another one at Chandigarh, during 1973. Their main objective was to train the operational police
personnel in modern scientific techniques of crime investigation, with a view to improve their professional standard
and efficiency.

The Role of Central Advisory Committees

The Union Government, during 1959, appointed two committees for the purpose of giving a lead to all the States in
establishing new forensic science laboratories and improving the existing ones, and for improving the study and
application of Forensic Medicine. These committees were (i) Central Forensic Science Advisory Committee and (ii)
Central Medico legal Advisory Committee. The Central Medico legal Advisory Committee was to advise the
Central and the State Governments on matters pertaining to medico legal procedures and practices. The Central
Advisory Committee on Forensic Science considered the issues related to the sphere of Forensic Science (excluding
forensic medicine). The Central Medico legal Advisory Committee was discontinued whereas the Central Forensic
Science Advisory Committee was converted into Standing Committee on Forensic Science during the year 1972,
which is functional even today in BPR&D.

Indian Academy of Forensic Science

The Indian Academy of Forensic Sciences (IAFS) was established in the year 1960. This academy started a biennial
scientific journal, which served as a forum for the exchange of ideas in forensic science with the other international
bodies. The role of the Academy was also to hold annual scientific meetings/seminars or assist in holding seminars
in forensic science. In fact, it was at the instance of this Academy that the Government of India established the
Neutron Activation Analysis Unit to cater for the forensic needs in the country.

Teaching of Forensic Science in the Universities

The question of introducing criminology and forensic science as the courses of study at the university level in India
was taken up with the Vice Chancellors of various universities during 1950, but the progress made in this direction
was not encouraging. The need for university teaching of criminology and forensic science was also stressed in
various annual meetings of the Central Advisory Committee on Forensic Science. A deputation headed by Shri KF
Rustamji met the Chairman, University Grants Commission in August 1961 and the matter was again taken up by
Shri DP Kohli, the then Director, Central Bureau of Investigation in 1967. As a result of these discussions, Dr DS
Kothari, the then Chairman, University Grants Commission set up a high level committee to advise the Commission
on the steps to be taken for introduction of Criminology and Forensic Sciences in university education. It
recommended that universities should be encouraged to introduce courses in Criminology at the undergraduate level
and postgraduate courses in Criminology and Forensic Science should be started only in a central autonomous
institution, which should be affiliated to a university. Consequently three Universities viz., University of Sagar,
Madras and Patiala started undergraduate and postgraduate courses in forensic science. It was further suggested that,
as an initial step in this direction, one institute under the Central Government should be established in Delhi. The
Committee recommended those two courses viz. Master's Degree in Criminology and Master's Degree in Forensic
Science should be organised in this Institute, besides Diploma courses for in service personnel. The institute should
also be developed as a center for research in Criminology and Forensic Science and should act as a clearinghouse of
up to date information in these fields.

Institute of Criminology & Forensic Science at New Delhi

After a series of debates at the Government level, it was decided that initially the Institute of Criminology and
Forensic Science should be established only for training the inservice personnel and for conducting research in the
field of forensic science. It was felt that unless the State governments and the consumer organizations agreed to
participate in the scheme, it would not be wise to start courses for granting postgraduate degrees. However, the
ultimate objective of the Institute was to develop into a full fledged academic institution affiliated to a university.
With the above aim in view, the Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science (ICFS) was established in Delhi
during 1971 with the limited objectives of imparting training to the in service personnel and conducting research in
Criminology and Forensic Science. It was also envisaged that the Institute should have two distinct faculties viz. the
Faculty of Criminology and the Faculty of Forensic Science and both should have a number of eminent teachers and
researchers with adequate background and field experience.

Creation of Forensic Science Division at BPR&D

On an invitation from the Government of India, Dr. VK Street, an eminent forensic scientist from the Department of
Forensic Medicine, University of Edinburgh, UK, visited different Indian forensic science institutions during 1972
and submitted a report to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. He strongly recommended for
creation of a post of Chief Forensic Scientist in the Ministry of Home Affairs to look after its forensic science
activities and to pay whole time attention for the development of this science in India. The Standing Committee on
Forensic Science, during 1973, also recommended for the creation of a post of Chief Forensic Scientist so that the
activities, which needed scientific inputs at the Union Government level, could be properly coordinated. The post of
Chief Forensic Scientist was finally sanctioned during 1983, and the Forensic Science Directorate was created in
BPR&D.

Recommendations of Scientific Advisory Committee to the Cabinet

During 1983, the then Scientific Advisory Committee to the Cabinet (SACC) under the overall guidance of an
Expert Committee chaired by Prof. M. M. Sharma, FRS, recommended that the laboratories in Delhi, Calcutta and
Hyderabad must be developed as S & T institutions, functioning in an autonomous fashion, with complete
modernization of equipment and manpower capabilities. In pursuance of these recommendations, the Government of
India declared the forensic science institutions, at the central Government level as Science and Technology
institutions.

Based on the observations of the Expert Group of the SACC, BPR&D evolved a master plan for restructuring each
CFSL of the BPR&D into fifteen scientific divisions. In the first phase, the three Central Forensic Science
Laboratories at Calcutta, Hyderabad, and Chandigarh were restructured into six scientific division viz. Biology,
Ballistics, Chemistry, Explosive, Physics, and Toxicology. Similarly, the offices of the Government Examiners of
Questioned Documents at Shimia, Calcutta, and Hyderabad were strengthened in terms of manpower. Besides
augmentation of staff, all the BPR&D laboratories registered significant progress in the acquisition of sophisticated
analytical equipment and updating/modernizing the laboratory and library facilities for smooth working of these
institutions.

A New Mandate to the CFSLS OF BPR&D

During mid 1990's, it was realised that most of the States have established their own forensic science laboratories
and hence the role of CFSLs to provide forensic analytical support to different states has got diluted. Hence the
utility of three CFSLs at the national level was questioned.

During 1997, this realization led to the process of defining the role of the CFSLs of BPR&D, de novo. The
justification for the existence of the three Central Forensic Science Laboratories under the BPR&D was thought to
be two folds. One, they should act as epitomes of quality and high standards for the State Laboratories to emulate.
They should not only set visibly higher standards in quality of analytical processes and reporting accuracy, but also
should be the repository of Standards and benchmarks against which the performance of all the State FSLs can be
judged. BPR&D should, therefore, have a decisive say in the process of accreditation, not only of its own
CFSLs/GEsQD, but also of all the State FSLs. Secondly, since forensic science is one of the most dynamic sciences,
CFSLs should provide R&D support to this field of science. Every new research, development and invention in any
discipline of science should have a potential of application in forensic science. Newer, better and more reliable
technologies developed in all the disciplines need to be harnessed for the fight against crime. The BPR&D CFSLs
should scout around for new developments outside the realm of forensic science and adapt them for use in Ms,
standardize the processes and disseminate them to the State FSLs. In order to perform this yeomen service, the
CFSLs need to maintain very high standards and specialization, way beyond what is possible in the State FSLs.

Strategy was evolved to bring about a complete paradigm change in the structure of the three BPR&D CFSLs and
provide them a new focused mandate of R&D and specialized training. It emerged that while preserving their
composite structure, the three laboratories should have subject specific exclusiveness and be developed as the
`Centers of Excellence' for research and development and specialized training in the designated fields.
Consequently, during 1998, the three CFSLs were reorganized with an aim to generate synergy and focus attention
on research and development activities in the thrust areas of forensic science. This was possible only if all the
available resources are pooled in the designated Centers of Excellence, rather than spread them very thin on the
whole ground. Besides focusing on their core activity of R&D and specialized training in the designated field of
forensic science, these laboratories also undertake crime case examination in all the fields of forensic science.
However, the routine forensic analysis case work has now been restricted to those received from the Central
Government organizations and State Governments/Union Territories, which have not yet established their own
forensic science facilities. These laboratories also act as the referral centers for handling forensic analysis of crime
cases requiring extensive investigation and high expertise, received from the courts of law, state and central forensic
science institutions and other crime investigating agencies in India. The designated fields were chosen as follows:

CFSL, Calcutta Forensic Biological Sciences

CFSL, Hyderabad Forensic Chemical Sciences

CFSL, Chandigarh Forensic Physical Sciences

The Neutron Activation Analysis Unit of CFSL, Calcutta, operating at the BARC, Mumbai, was brought under the
administrative control of CFSL, Hyderabad.

Establishment of DNA Typing Laboratory at CFSL Calcutta

In response to the rising demands of providing high technology to the crime investigation process, BPR&D
established the first Forensic DNA Typing facility at CFSL, Calcutta, during 1998. The implementation of this state
of the art technique represents significant advancements in the forensic biology in the country. The DNA Typing
Unit at CFSL Calcutta is equipped with the most contemporary techniques of DNA typing, namely, Polymerize
Chain Reaction (PCR) based method, HLADQ alpha and Polymarker technique, and Locus Specific Restricted
Fragment Length Polymorphism technique. This laboratory, after being functional, has been referred many crime
cases pertaining to murder, rape, rape and murder, paternity disputes, organ transplant, exchange of babies in
hospitals etc. DNA Typing facility has further been upgraded to conduct `Short Tandem Repeats Sequence based
DNA Typing.

FORENSIC EVIDENCE CASES

INTRODUCTION
The opinion of an expert is admissible as relevancy fact under section 45 IEA of the evidence act. The provision
incorporated in section 45 IEA is that the court ,in order to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law ,or of
science or art, or as to identity of disputed hand-writing or finger impression, can treat the opinion of persons
specially skilled in such foreign law, science or arts to identity of disputed handwriting, or finger impression as
relevant facts on that particular issue. Thus the opinion of persons, especially skilled in foreign law, science or art
as to the identity of handwriting or finger impression, called expert are relevant facts.
Expert Opinion
The expression as "science" or art as used in section 45 IEA as of wide import and should not be attributed a narrow
meaning. The term of "science" and "art " therefore, have to be construed widely to include health in their ambit the
opinion of an expert in each of such branch.
1 State through CBI New Delhi v. S J Choudhary, AIR 1996 SC 1491
In state of A.P. v/s Madige Boosennu
2. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jailal and others, (1999)
Supreme Court held that an excise inspector's opinion, deposing about the nature of liquor only on the basis of
smell can't be expected as opinion evidence of expert under section 45 of the evidence act. An expert is not a
witness of fact and his evidence is of supplementary or advisory nature. Expert opinion evidence must be examined
by following way:-1.The scientific criteria that has been applied;2.The reasons given in support of such opinion
and3.The data and materials used Thus, the expert is required to furnish before the court the necessary scientific
criteria for examine or testing and arriving at result so as to enable the judge to from his independent judgment by
the application of that situation to given facts. The credibility of an expert witness depends on the reasons and stated
in support of conclusion and the tool technique and materials ,which from the bases of such conclusion
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jailal and others, (1999)
Evidentiary Value of Expert Opinion

An expert is one, who has acquired special knowledge, skill and experience in any science, art, trade or profession.
Therefore the evidence of a witness as opinion of an expert, it must be shown that he has made a special training of
the subject or acquired special knowledge (having experiences) therein or in other words he has skill and other
knowledge in the concerning subject.
The fact that disputed documents has been written or signed by a specific person can be proved under section 47 of
the evidence act by a person who is acquainted with the handwriting of the person by whom it is supposed to be
written or signed undersection 73. The court is also empowered to compare the writing, signature or seal ascertain
whether a specific disputed signatory writing or seal is that of a person by whom it purports have been made
.Section 73 of the evidence act empowers the court conducting trial or inquiry to direct an accused person to give
his simples writing to enable the same to be compared by a handwriting expert chosen or approved by the court
4. . Lalit popli v. Canara Bank and others, (2003)3 S.C6 5836
In the above issues it is also worthy of observation that section 45 IEA and section 73 IEA are complementary to
each other and irrespective of an opinion of the handwriting expert the court can compare the admitted writing with
the disputed writing and come on its own conclusion. Such exercise of comparison is permissible under section 73
of the Evidence Act.
5 .. AIR 1980 SC 5318. AIR 197(1992)3 SCC 70078 SC 11839
Whenever there is dispute about hand writing ,both parties to the case almost unchangeable, put before the court
their own experts, who make themselves avail-able on hire to swear in favor of the client paying for them
professional fee. This creates very confusing circumstances. In such a situation, the court must ex-amine the
conflicting opinion in the light of objectivity and probability and should not abdicate its duty to decide which of the
opinion correct. In Delhi Administration v/s Paharancase6 SC laid down that the handwriting a person can be
proved in following way:
1.By an admission of the person who wrote it .
2.By the evidence of some person who saw it written. The above are the best methods to proof of disputed
handwriting. Further there are three other methods of proof by opinion.
International Indexed & Referred Research Journal, December, 2012, ISSN 0974-2832, RNI-RAJBIL-
2009/29954;VOLIV ISSUE-47
1.By the evidence of a handwriting expert.
2.By the evidence of a witness acquainted with the handwriting of the person, who is said to have written the
writing is disputed.
6 . AIR 1980 SC 53110. 2003 SCC 21
The opinion formed by the court on comparison made by it self.The SC held that the above three cognate modes
of proof involve a process of comparison to be made by handwriting expert or by person familiar with the hand-
writing of the person concerned or by the court. State of Maharashtra v/s Suchdeo Singh and another case6,SC held
that before a court can act regarding the opinion of handwriting expert following to content must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.1.The genuineness of the specimen of the admitted handwriting of the concerned accused
and,2.That the handwriting expert as a competent, reliable and dependable witness whose evidence inspires
confidence.
Opinion of Finger Prints:-
The science of identification of finger prints ,no doubt, has developed to the state of exactitude but the main
thing to be scrutinized by court write appreciating evidence related thereto is whether the experts examination is
thorough, complete and scientific. In regard to this issue Supreme Court held in Murarilal v/ s State of M.P7, the
risk of an incorrect opinion is practically nonexistent. Where the finger prints are clear, the court must verify the
evidence of the expert by applying its own mind to similarities and dissimilarities afforded by the finger prints
before coming to the conclusion on way or other. As held in Mohanlal and Another v/s Ajit Singh and another8, the
SC explained a majority of finger prints found at crime scenes or on crime articleis particularly smudge and it is for
the experienced and skilled finger print expert to say whether a mark is usable as finger print evidence. Similarly it
is for a qualified technician to examine and give his opinion whether the identity can be done on eight or even less
identical characteristics in an appropriate case.

Evidentiary value:-
An expert witness is not wholly reliable. His evidence of an advisory nature regarding evidentiary value of opinion
evidence of handwriting expert it has been observed by the SC in Murarilal v/s state of M.P9,that generally it is said
that it has hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of an expert. An opinion of experts in general are un
reliable but because human judgment is liable to error and one expert may go wrong because of some defect
observations, some error of premises or honest mistake or conclusion. It is unfair and inferior type of witness. Again
the above view adopted by the SC in case of Alamgir v/s state(NCT Delhi)10, saw that the science of identification
of handwriting has attained more or less a state of perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-
existent. The court went on further to record that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has
crystallized in a rule of law that opinion evidence of handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless
substantially corroborated.
Conclusion:
In many cases where both parties call experts and conflicting views are heard on the same point. Again there may be
cases where neither side calls an expert being unable to afford one. In all such circumstances it becomes a plain duty
of the court to compare the writing and give its own views. The duty can't be avoided by taking recourse to the
reasoning that the court is to the reasoning that the court is not an expert. Where there is opinion of experts, that
well and the court, where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from the authorities, text books and the
court's own experience and knowledge. But the court should discharge its duty.

Forensic science and the criminal justice System

 Background
1. Forensic science has been under sustained scrutiny over the last 10 years. It is a complex discipline that
interacts with a range of fields, including science, policing, government and law. There are clear, deep-rooted
challenges that have been identified but not addressed. In this inquiry the fundamental importance of
effective, robust and high-quality forensic science and its contribution to the justice system have been
apparent, as have the dangers of not supporting and enabling world-class forensic science.

2. Forensic science applies scientific methods to the recovery, analysis and interpretation of relevant materials
and data in criminal investigations and court proceedings. It is both an intelligence and evidential tool to
assist in the delivery of justice.

3. Forensic science is traditionally viewed as a collection of different subdomains with shared overarching
principles, processes, and activities. Within the different sub-domains there is a range of different primary
aims, and variability in terms of the scientific underpinning and robustness of the methods employed.
Professor Peter Sommer, Professor of Digital Forensics at Birmingham City University, summarised the
different categories of forensic science activity:

• “‘Trace’ or ‘wet’ forensics: where a laboratory carries out one of a series of standard tests to identify
or match some material found at a scene of crime or associated with an individual

• Interpretation: where the result of the examination of the trace is ambiguous but nevertheless some
sort of inference or conclusion is desired. “Interpretation” may mean assigning a statistical probability
of likelihood, but it can also involve providing a contextual explanation or hypothesis about events

• Reconstruction of events: where large numbers of different “traces” plus observations and testimonial
evidence are combined by a skilled investigator who produces a reconstruction of a sequence of
events. Examples include road traffic accidents, murder scenes, the use of mobile phone geolocation
data to plot the movements of its owner over time, and the examination of a computer or smart phone
to show planning and a course of action related to a crime

• Opinion evidence: where an expert has looked at a range of circumstances and offers opinion on the
basis of skill, training and experience”. 1

4. Forensic science sits at the nexus of science, law, policy and investigation. It should be viewed as a process
that encompasses the crime scene through to court. The following figure shows the different stages of the
process and how forensic evidence and human decision-making are integral at each stage:

Figure 1: Forensic science from crime scene to court

1 Written evidence from Professor Peter Sommer (FRS0009)

 LABORATORY EVIDENCE
ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION

Evidence Evidence Analysis Resultsof Interpretation Reporting Presentation

collection submission carriedout analysis ofresults interpretation offindings
COMMITTED

OUTCOME
JUDICIAL
CRIME

CRIMESCENE COURT

Eyewitness Intelligence Interview Decisionto

evidence gathering prosecute

POLICING

It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important.” So said the fictional
detective, Sherlock Holmes. Armed with his finely honed skills of backwards reasoning, his trademark ability to
solve unsolvable crimes often hinged on his revealing evidence too small to be noticed.

Holmes was an inspiration for the very founders of modern day forensic science. As the decades passed and the
tools in their armoury grew, so too did the sheen of invincibility that surrounded their discipline. But there was a
crucial chink in their methods that had been overlooked: subjectivity.

While the likes of Holmes’s successors in detective fiction may lead us to believe that forensic evidence is based on
precise deduction, all too often it relies on a scientist’s personal opinion, rather than hard fact.

Science on trial

Consider the following case. In December 2009, Donald Gates walked out of his Arizona prison with $75 and a bus
ticket to Ohio. After serving 28 years for a rape and murder he didn’t commit, he was a free man. Now the spotlight
began to shift to the forensic technique that put him there: microscopic hair analysis.

Human hair is one of the most common types of evidence found at crime scenes. During the 80s and 90s, forensic
analysts in the US and elsewhere often looked to the physical differences between hairs to determine whether those
found at a crime scene matched hairs from a suspect – like Donald Gates.

When he stood trial in 1982, an FBI analyst called Michael Malone testified that hairs found on the body of the
murder victim – a Georgetown University student called Catherine Schilling – were consistent with Donald Gates’
hairs. He added that the probability they came from anyone else was one in 10,000.

“That’s very compelling evidence, particularly when it comes from a witness wearing a white laboratory coat,” says
Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a New York-based non-profit organisation that uses DNA
evidence to overturn wrongful convictions.
The FBI is now reviewing several thousand cases as DNA testing sheds new light on the truth (Credit: Getty
Images)
However, hair analysis is not purely objective; I might think two hairs look identical, but you might disagree. Even
if we agree that two hairs match, no-one has ever figured out how many other hairs might be similarly
indistinguishable from one another. “When a person says that the probability is one-in-10,000, that’s simply a made-
up number,” says Neufeld. “There’s no data to support it.”

Donald Gates was finally exonerated when DNA testing revealed that the hairs didn’t belong to him after all. Two
similar exonerations followed soon afterwards. As a result of these cases, the FBI is now reviewing several thousand
cases in which its scientists may have offered similarly misleading testimony. Last month, it announced that of
the 268 cases it has reviewed so far that went to trial, 96% them involved scientifically invalid testimony or other
errors by FBI agents. Among those convicted, 33 received death sentences, and nine have already been executed.

The FBI’s review won’t necessarily overturn the convictions, but it does mean that they need to be reconsidered
carefully. Lawyers scrutinising these cases must work out what other evidence was presented in court; if they hinged
on flawed hair testimony, retrials and exonerations may follow. In cases where the original physical evidence still
exists, that DNA testing may shed new light on the truth.

Damning report

Even trusted lines of evidence, such as fingerprint analysis, are not water-tight. Research has shown that the same
fingerprint expert can reach a different conclusion about the same fingerprints depending on the context they’re
given about a case.

Based in part on these findings, in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences in the US published a report on the state
of forensic science. Commissioned in response to a string of laboratory scandals and miscarriages of justice, its
conclusions were damning. “Testimony based on faulty forensic science analyses may have contributed to the
wrongful conviction of innocent people,” it said. “In a number of disciplines, forensic science professionals have yet
to establish either the validity of their approach or the accuracy of their conclusions.”

The report was a wake-up call, not just for forensic scientists in the US, but around the world. “What it exposed
were significant scientific deficiencies across many of the different methods that we use, both to examine and
interpret different types of evidence,” says Nic Daeid, a professor of forensic science at the University of Dundee in
Scotland. 

Of all lines of forensic evidence, DNA analysis was considered to be the most objective. Resting on complex
chemical analysis, it seems stringently scientific – a gold-standard for how forensic science should be done. Yet
perhaps juries should not be too quick to trust the DNA analyses they see in court.

Even trusted lines of evidence, such as fingerprint analysis, are not water-tight (Credit: Thinkstock)
In 2010, while working as a reporter for New Scientist magazine, I teamed up with Itiel Dror from University
College London, and Greg Hampikian from Boise State University in Idaho, to put this idea of DNA’s objectivity to
the test.

We took DNA evidence from a real-life case – a gang-rape in Georgia, US – and presented it to 17 experienced
analysts working in the same accredited government lab in the US.

In the original case, two analysts from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation concluded that the man who was
ultimately convicted of the crime, Kerry Robinson, "could not be excluded" from the crime scene sample, based on
his DNA profile. But when the evidence was shown to our 17 analysts, they reached very different conclusions; just
one analyst agreed that Robinson "cannot be excluded". Four analysts said the evidence was inconclusive and 12
said he could be excluded.

Yet just because forensic science is subjective, this doesn’t mean it should be disregarded; it can still yield vital
clues that can help to catch and convict murderers, rapists, and other criminals. “Subjectivity isn’t a bad word,” says
Dror. “It doesn’t mean that the evidence isn’t reliable, but it is open to bias and contextual influences.”

Blind judgement

What’s needed are additional safeguards to shield forensic examiners against irrelevant information that might skew
their judgement. A first step is to ensure they aren’t given irrelevant information, such as knowing that witnesses
have placed the suspect at the crime scene, or that he has previous convictions for similar crimes. Another safeguard
is to reveal the relevant information sequentially – and only when it is needed. “We need to give them the
information that they need to do their job when they need it, but not extra information that’s irrelevant to what
they’re doing and which could influence their perception and judgement,” says Dror.

In the US at least, this is starting to happen: a national commission on forensic science has been established, with the
goal of strengthening the field – and this includes looking at human factors like cognitive bias. But similar strategies
are needed elsewhere if forensic science is to rebuild its tattered reputation.

When it comes to deduction and proof, there is still much we can learn from Arthur Conan Doyle’s hero. As
Sherlock Holmes also once said: "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth."

Share this story on Facebook, Google+ or Twitter.

FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY
. Before we trace the legal footprints of Forensic Psychology in India, it is imperative to understand the justice
system and what part of the puzzle of the judicial system does forensic psychology fit. When a crime has been
committed the point of contact is the police who eventually collect evidence from the scene of the crime and deliver
it to the Forensic science laboratories. Once the laboratories complete their scientific assessment it is sent to the
court of law to help in deducing who, when, where, what, why and how. Forensic Psychology tends to play a very
important role especially rendering answers to – why? – The motive.

History of forensic psychology in India:

One can trace the roots of Forensic Psychology back to 1968 when the first lie detection division was set up at the
Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Initially, there was an
absence of formal training centers for professionals to be formally trained in lie detection. References on how to run
lie detection tests were made from books and papers from the western culture (Reid and Inbau, 1966). Convincing
the Indian courts about the efficient jurisprudence of Forensic Psychology was based on trial and error of scientific
tools used.
The first court-authorized narco-analysis was conducted in 1989 by Dr. S.L. Vaya. However, this was against the
consent of the person in question. She went onto assert that consent and court sanction were equally important
keeping the law and fundamental rights in mind. This test was also conducted mainly in prisons out of a kit, unlike
the facilities that professionals have today. Presently, narco analysis is conducted in a room which is a replica of an
operation theatre with the help and guidance of a team of professionals which include a Doctor, a nurse, and mental
health practitioner.
In 2010 the supreme court of India ruled that tests such as Narco analysis, Lie detection and Brain Electrical
Oscillation Signature can be conducted with informed consent. Information discovered with the help of these
instruments can be admitted as evidence in the court of law.
A grey field is observed on how the courts find scientific tools used by forensic Psychology laboratories are invasive
of an individual’s fundamental rights and on the other, they use the information extracted during the procedures to
help them with crime scene analysis (Sen, 2015).

India's valuable contribution with respect to crime detection

A contribution made by Prof. C.R. Mukundan, Professor at NIMHANS in 2003, a professor of psychology who had
a keen interest in neuroscience discovered the technique of Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature (BEOS). This
technique taps into the experiential memory stored of a suspect and not conceptual memory. It assists in deducing
whether a suspect was a witness to the crime or part of the crime based on scientific facts.
As generations’ progress and new advances are made in the world, criminals have become more stealth. Due to the
advancement in technology, the modus operandi of the average criminal has become cleverer with his interaction at
the crime scene. Currently, lesser and lesser physical evidence is found at the crime scene. This leaves the criminal
Justice system to resort to expert advice of forensic psychologists to help them assimilate a profile to track the
culprit down. As courts now have to rely more on oral or documentary evidence, Information collected with the help
of BEOS from suspects has become an important tool in crime investigation.
This technique, however, has been targeted with a lot of criticism. As BEOS is based on understanding brain wave
readings of EEG’s prove to observe a lot of ‘noise’ during the procedure, which can deduce the accuracy of the tool.
Further, opponents of the method believe “experiential” and conceptual knowledge do not fall into categories of
memory. This methodology though accepted more openly in the courtroom does require a lot more peer reviewing
and defend its infallible nature.

Role of Forensic Psychologists in the Courtroom

In India, as we know, the police collect the evidence and transport it to the Forensic Laboratory of the Jurisdiction
where experts scientifically examine it. The role of a forensic psychologist would ideally begin when they are called
upon by the police, lawyers or judges to interview and assess criminals. The formal interview and assessment are
then used as corroborative evidence in the court of law to help execute justice effectively. A Forensic Psychologist
can also continue work towards rehabilitation of a criminal or a victim under court mandate in a medico-legal ward.
According to the Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section 45 states: " Opinions of experts.—When the Court has to form
an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of handwriting 35 [or finger
impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, 36 [or in
questions as to identity of handwriting] 35 [or finger impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called
experts."
As per the above clause, a forensic psychologist assists the judicial system to execute the law in a just manner by
presenting facts. These facts are in the form of reports of in-depth interviews and thorough assessments of the
suspects in question. It must be taken into account that a forensic psychologist acts as an expert who imparts his
knowledge and expertise to the courtroom, which acts as corroborative evidence. At no point, the expert has the
final verdict in dispensing justice, which shall only be executed by the judge.
A crucial role played by a forensic psychologist or forensic psychiatrist would be to shed light on the “ mens rea’’ of
suspects. “Mens rea” addresses the state of mind of the said accused that generally pleads on ‘not guilty’ in the
witness stand during a trial. Those who plead guilty may claim to have committed a crime under the influence of a
substance or be unaware that they have engaged in the crime. This allows the defense to plead lesser punishment or
procrastinate the final verdict of the judge. In such cases, experts step in and assimilate a thorough forensic
interview and assessment to judge how true the individual’s statement is. This helps the judge execute a verdict,
which is fair and in light of the safety of the society and the individual.
The Indian Evidence Act 1872, section 45, allows forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to lend their expertise to
solving in criminal investigations. This gives forensic psychologists an opportunity to make forensic psychological
methods dynamic, unique and versatile befitting catering to the needs of cases with the help of feedback procured
from the judicial system i.e. police, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and other forensic professionals they assist.

Rehabilitation in light of offenders

India’s prison system requires a considerable make over. Unlike Canadian and United Kingdom, Indian prisons are
not conducive to rehabilitation. Unfortunately this gives a rise to recidivism of crime rate in the country. Statistics
recorded by the Government of India till 2014, reflect an overall rate of recidivism of the country is 7.8%. However,
statistics of individual states reflects more concern. The statistics of recidivism in Tripura 54%, Telangana 10.1%
and Andhra Pradesh 7.2%. A significant contributor towards these statistics was from the state of Madhya Pradesh.
Out of 35,23,577 arrested, 32,70,079 were new offenders. 1,95,183 held a conviction of one imprisonment record,
44,171 were imprisoned twice and 14,144 had been imprisoned three times or more.
Prisons in India have a hosting capacity for over 366,000 offenders. However, there is more than 110%
overcrowding, and an appropriate offender-psychologist ratio would be required in order to understand the
perpetrators' mind sets and guide them through their issues. While the idea that prison systems are supposed to be
rehabilitative in nature is often stressed upon, much needs to be done in order for that to be put into practice. Indian
prisons boast of a capacity to hold 366,000 offenders. However, it is observed that there is a 110% overcrowding.
There is lack of rehabilitative psychologists who would be able to deliver their skill set into guiding prisoners
settling into jails, or life imprisonment. Inmates tend to face an abundance of mental health issues e.g.: Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder, personality disorders, substance withdrawal, schizophrenia etc. attention needs to be paid
and prisoners need to be provided with aid to manage distress. With correct intervention plans for offenders who
deal with mental illness, the rate of psychiatric recidivism decreases. No fixed interventions exist that work on all
offenders. Appropriate assessment is needed in order to effectively deal with offender issues.
Forensic psychologists can carry out individual and group therapeutic interventions as India has in mental health
facilities in India which have been proven effective, similar assessments and road maps can be made to facilitate
inmates to be released back into society in a healthy manner.
Conclussions.
One can observe that the weight of the legal footprints of forensic psychology is not as heavy we would expect it to
be. Currently, it is still used as corroborative evidence in Indian Courts.

Recommendations
An effective standard operating procedure has to be enforced within the system where forensic psychology comes to
play. Standardized Guidelines need to be formed for the smooth functioning of the system where it clearly suggests
where forensic psychology needs to be involved. Augmentation and training of Forensic psychology will help
accelerate the efficiency of students and professionals. Right man for the right job – the technical skill set of a
forensic psychologist must be taken into account and should take precedence over another professional's skill set
(e.g. clinicians or counselors). Accountability should be instituted into the system where funds, machines, and
manpower is assessed as well e.g. how many trained forensic psychologists exist in India? Where can they be
placed? According to the Bureau of Police Research and Development (BPRD, 2017), there are 15,579 registered
police stations. This opens a gate to create 15,579 jobs in the market for a specialized skill set like forensic
psychology. Prisons around the country need to employ forensic mental health professionals to sustain the path of
rehabilitation which will eventually show a significant decrease in statistics of recidivism. Keeping in mind that all
crime is man-made and executed, each Forensic Laboratory must have a Forensic Psychologist or a team to benefit
from their skill set. Time is of the essence in every case. If the current investigating system continues, special
training would need to be imparted to the police who collect evidence including initial interviews of victims and
suspects without effective training. This compromises evidence as their eye for detail may be amiss. A dire need is
to create public awareness of the system and under what circumstances they can seek help of a forensic
psychologist. This awareness can be done at the educational level to make the masses aware of what comprises
forensic mental health. The need of the hour is a functional ecosystem within the justice field which focuses on
harmony of professionals working together with a collaborative effort more than
a competitive one

REFERENCES

1. Jaiswal BS. Data on Police Organizations (p.22, Databook2017). New Delhi. Deep Graphics ; 2017
2. Chandran R, Koshy J. Brain Mapping: debate over scientific validity continues. Retrieved from
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/JNbZwqCOiDsXa21mXtUORO/Brain-mapping-debate-over-
scientificvalidity-continues.html ; 2010.
3. Government of India. Constitution of India, Article 20(3),1949.
4. Home. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2018, from http://www.axxonet.com/passion/11-forensics.
5. Government of India. Ministry of statistics and Programme Implementation. (2015, December 31).
Retrieved from http://www.mospi.gov.in/statistical-year-book-india/2016/206.
6. India. (1872). Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, Gazette of India, Government printer (laws).
7. India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of states, National Crime Records Bureau. (2015, September
7). Recidivism Amongst Persons Arrested Under IPC Crimes. Retrieved from
https://data.gov.in/resources/recidivism-amongst-persons-arrested-under-ipc-crimes-during-2013.
8. Karandikar, S. (2017, June 18). The case of India’s missing Forensic Psychologists. Retrieved from
http://www.livemint.com/Sundayapp/tI8ge5WBhG0HXxCW9mKzNM/The-case-of-Indias-
missingforensic-psychologists.html
9. Reid JE, Inbau FE. Truth and Deception: The polygraph (“lie detector) technique. Williams and Witkins,
Baltimore ; 1966.
10. Sen A. Aarushi. Gurgaon, Haryana. Penguin books publication ; 2015.

Forensic science is the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems or proceedings. In law enforcement,
forensic science is largely concerned with testing physical and biological evidence to determine objective facts
about what happened, when it happened, and who was involved. As a result, forensic science capability is important
because it may yield information that is more accurate, precise, and reliable than eyewitness testimony or even
confessions.2Such information, in turn, can increase the success of both investigations and trials in determining the
facts of the case.

2.
As the results of the RAND Forensic Technology Survey and accompanying case studies indicate, there is a pressing
need for more and better forensic science technology—and for well-trained people to use it and present its results.
Key findings include:

• Many crime laboratories have substantial backlogs of evidence not yet tested or otherwise processed. Clearing
these backlogs is a major concern and goal of laboratory directors.
• In attempting to keep up with demand for forensic services, laboratories tend to support prosecutions better than
they support investigations. The result is that fewer criminal investigations are aided than would be the case if
more, timely forensic science ca-
Forensic science is the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems or proceedings. In law enforcement,
forensic science is largely concerned with testing physical and biological evidence to determine objective facts
about what happened, when it happened, and who was involved. As a result, forensic science capability is important
because it may yield information that is more accurate, precise, and reliable than eyewitness testimony or even
confessions.3Such information, in turn, can increase the success of both investigations and trials in determining the
facts of the case.
As the results of the RAND Forensic Technology Survey and accompanying case studies indicate, there is a pressing
need for more and better forensic science technology—and for well-trained people to use it and present its results.
Key findings include:

• Many crime laboratories have substantial backlogs of evidence not yet tested or otherwise processed. Clearing
these backlogs is a major concern and goal of laboratory directors.
• In attempting to keep up with demand for forensic services, laboratories tend to support prosecutions better than
they support investigations. The result is that fewer criminal investigations are aided than would be the case if
more, timely forensic science capacity were available. This in turn would increase the likelihood of success. 4

55
3 For compelling arguments supporting this, see Scheck, Neufeld, and Dwyer (2000).

55
4 Here is how one lab director described his situation to us: “While we are meeting most prosecution needs by trial date in all disciplines, we
believe investigative support requires case turnaround in less than 30 days while the case is still active. This is especially true in property crimes,
such as burglary, because the police case goes inactive. Slow turnaround limits the effectiveness of forensic databases such as AFIS. Police
become discouraged from submitting evidence in cases without suspects or arrests. Low volume needs of investigators are not being met due to
the high cost per sample of providing quality-assured service.”