The Reliability of Forensic Evidence, Role of Science in Courts

It is frequently seen that science plays a crucial role in the Indian judicial system for providing assistance to courts in reaching a specific conclusion. The examples can be seen in civil as well as criminal side. In civil side, science helps in identification of handwriting and thumb prints, CCTV video recordings, E-mails, Texts, other electronic documentary evidences also providing Expert Evidence on execution of documents. Section 75(e) and Order XXVI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 lays down the base for using the opinion of the experts in civil cases.

However, science plays a comparatively predominant role in criminal justice system as it involves the question of life and liberty of accused along with the victim of crime. In criminal jurisprudence, science is extensively used from collection of medical evidences to doctor’s opinions on injuries and/or medical reports to Forensic evidences picked from the crime scene to Fingerprint analysis to firearms and ballistics identification to methods of brain mapping, polygraphy and narco-analysis tests conducted on the accused to CCTV Footages, etc. Section 291 to 294, 53A, 311A of the Code of criminal procedure lays down foundation and power of using the opinion of expert in criminal cases.

Background

Nevertheless, the certainty and precision as established by science is hard to reach when we are dealing with the intricate nuances of any legal case laws where the ideation of justice is based largely on multifarious factors viz. human factor, the judge has to decide the case based on various evidences including scientific evidence.

Prior to the legislation of the Evidence law by the Britishers, Indian Society of 1800s was entirely based of religion-based laws, usages and customs but the passage of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 opened the doors for scientific deliberation upon legal subjects, one such aspect was the relevancy of Expert’s Opinion. There are many provisions under Indian laws to deal with Expert evidence but the term ‘Expert’ is explained under Section 45 of Indian Evidence Act and the court duly considers the view of an expert in forming any opinion upon any issue of Science, Electronic Evidence, identifying handwriting, finger prints, etc. Section 73 of the Evidence Act is also significant which states that the court of law can direct any person, present in the court, to write any words or figures for enabling the court to compare the words or figures with the alleged earlier written works of the person. Section 139 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides that the Magistrate may, for the purposes of an inquiry summon and examine an expert. These experts may also refer to their professional books and treaties for refreshing their memory before giving an opinion to the court.

Legal Analysis

In State of H.P. v. Jai Lal , the SC held: “An expert is not a witness of fact. His evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of this criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The scientific opinion evidence, if intelligible, convincing and tested becomes a factor and often an important factor for consideration along with the other evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.”

The opinions of experts are generally in the form of written reports and are not directly admitted into evidence but the Expert is to be called in court as a witness. The opinions of an expert are relevant in court proceedings albeit they have to be examined and cross examined as a witness of the party who brings such expert to court with certain exceptional cases . Nonetheless, these expert opinions carry more persuasive value than being binding in its expanse upon the court of law.

In Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. , the SC held that -“The courts, normally would look at expert evidence with a greater sense of acceptability, but it is equally true that the courts are not absolutely guided by the report of the experts, especially if such reports are perfunctory and unsustainable. We agree that the purpose of an expert opinion is primarily to assist the court in arriving at a final conclusion but such report is not a conclusive one. This Court is expected to analyse the report, read it in conjunction with the other evidence on record and then form its final opinion as to whether such report is worthy of reliance or not.”

A full bench of Supreme Court stated that expert’s evidence must not be given precedence over substantive evidence - “By now, it is well ¬settled that the Court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature. It is also settled that it may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence, and the Court may seek independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given case. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it”.

Forensic Evidence 

An Expert’s evidence is an exception to the rule of hearsay evidence as the expert is not a witness to the actual crime but given only an opinion to guide the court. It is not the cure to all the ills and an expert cannot determine the innocence and guilt of any person but the expert helps the court in such determination.

With the advancement of science and technology there is a rise in cyber-crimes which led to the enactment of Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000 and dealing with it required electronic experts and as per section 45A of the Evidence Act, the report of the examiner of the electronic evidence referred in section 79A of the IT Act 2000 is a relevant fact. Section 79A of the IT Act lays down that the central government shall notify organizations or authority as an Examiner of electronic evidence.

In certain cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed science to prevail over legal presumptions. When the question of legitimacy was raised in front of the Supreme Court and it allowed the scientific conclusiveness of DNA test to prevail over the conclusive proof of legitimacy provided under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for determining the paternity of the child. The SC discussed the proposition in so many words - “Section 112 of the Evidence Act was enacted at a time when the modern scientific advancement and DNA test were not even in contemplation of the Legislature. The result of DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate. Although Section 112 raises a presumption of conclusive proof on satisfaction of the conditions enumerated therein but the same is rebuttable. The presumption may afford legitimate means of arriving at an affirmative legal conclusion. While the truth or fact is known, there is no need or room for any presumption…. In our opinion, when there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former.” Thereby allowing the scientifically accurate DNA test to rebut the conclusive proof of legitimacy under the Evidence Act.

The chief relevance of using scientific evidence and expert opinion is to help the courts in arriving at a definite conclusion and prevent injustice. The scientific evidence helps the court in deciding the case in hand but does not have the force of law in itself for establishing the absoluteness of fact therefore it can be safely stated that science is for providing support to the judicial system and not substitute its function of adjudicating any case. The role of scientific opinions is more assisting in nature rather than being decisive as the determination of the case finally depends upon the judge who is duly guided by legal principles and even science in certain cases. Consequently, it can be said that law is not science but it takes immense help from science in certain cases involving scientific facets.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while forensic evidence can be a valuable tool in the criminal justice system, it is not without limitations. Courts must approach forensic evidence with caution, critically evaluate its reliability, and consider the potential for error, bias, or misconduct. Collaboration between the scientific and legal communities is crucial to ensure that forensic evidence is used effectively, accurately, and ethically in court proceedings.

References

1. Sec. 53, 53A & 293 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 75 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908; Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920; Sec. 45 – 60, 73 & 112 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

2. Section 45. 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 or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger-impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.

3. Section 159, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

4. (1999) 7 SCC 280.

5. Section 291: the evidence of the medical witness, taken and attested by the magistrate, will be admitted in evidence in any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding, although the doctor is not called as a witness; Section 292: The evidence of the officers of Mint upon any matter sent to them for examination may be used as evidence, without calling the officer of mint as a witness; Section 293: the report of the government scientific experts, upon any matter or thing submitted to them for examination or analysis, can be used in evidence. The section makes the presence of the expert in the court dependent on the requirement as perceived by the court; Section 294: when the document filed by the defense or the prosecution is admitted in evidence, by the opposing party, then the same can be read into evidence without the calling of the expert.

6. (2015) 7 SCC 178: at page 197

7. Ibid, Para 40.

8. Para 8, Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy [(2019) 14 SCC 220]; See also Ram Chandra and Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381, Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529, Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210, and S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 4 SCC 596.

9. Section 112, The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

10. Para 17-18, Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaikand another, [AIR 2014 SC 932].