Evidentiary Value and Admissibility of Forensic Evidence

The admissibility of forensic evidence in India has become critical in criminal adjudication. Courts have relied increasingly on DNA, voice samples, cyber forensics, and fingerprint analysis. However, statutory clarity on collection, preservation, and authentication remains scattered across procedural laws. “Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872” acknowledges expert opinion as relevant fact, but not conclusive evidence. “The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973” further supplements this under “Sections 53, 53A, 54 and 293”, enabling medical examination and submission of expert reports by government scientific experts. Yet inconsistencies remain. The absence of a uniform law on forensic evidence has led to varied judicial interpretations. In “Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263, the Supreme Court held that involuntary administration of narco-analysis, polygraph, and BEAP tests violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution”. The Court emphasized procedural fairness, consent, and privacy. This verdict exposed the tension between investigatory efficiency and constitutional protection. Courts now insist on informed consent and magistrate supervision for intrusive forensic techniques. “The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022” expanded the scope of bodily measurements, including biometric and biological samples. While useful in law enforcement, it raised concerns of privacy violations. In “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, the right to privacy was declared a fundamental right under Article 21”, adding constitutional scrutiny to forensic procedures. Judicial discretion remains central in assessing evidentiary reliability. Forensic reports are persuasive, not determinative. Indian courts prefer corroboration. The evidentiary value hinges on scientific rigor, proper chain of custody, and unbiased expert analysis. While forensic evidence enhances truth-finding, it must pass the dual tests of relevancy and reliability, aligned with constitutional safeguards.