INTRODUCTION
The law of evidence is the foundation to any judicial system since courts base their judgments and resolutions on evidence to establish the facts, liability, and justice. In the absence of sound evidentiary norms, the results of the judiciary can be random, inconsistent and against the principles of justice. In the contemporary world, the swift scientific and technological advancements have altered the traditional ideas of evidence. Previously prevailing types of evidence, oral testimony and documentary proof have been replaced by forensic science, electronic records, surveillance video, DNA profiling, fingerprint identification, cyber traces and expert witness. These changes have necessitated the revision of the evidentiary rules of law systems all over the world to adjust to the emerging ways of establishing facts whilst upholding the procedures protection and the constitutional rights.
One of the most important aspects of criminal adjudication has been revealed to be forensic evidence. It offers scientific techniques of associating suspected individuals with crime scenes, determining victims, reenacting events, and eliminating innocent people. DNA evidence, ballistic reports, toxicology results, and digital forensic analysis can often have a heavy probative weight in modern trials. The growing reliance on forensic techniques, however, also causes serious legal issues of reliability, chain of custody, professional competence of experts, the validity of scientific methods, privacy rights, and the risk of wrongful convictions due to erroneous or overstated expert testimony. In this way, the admissibility and assessment of forensic evidence has taken the centre stage in the evidence law of the present day.
The case of India and the United States is one of two powerful yet different legal systems of evidentiary regulation. In the past, India had depended on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a codified law that regulated the admissibility, relevancy, burden of proof and documentary evidence in more than 100 years. To address the changes in technology and the necessity to be modernized, India adopted the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, aimed at updating the principles of the evidentiary by explicitly acknowledging electronic and digital documents, reinforcing the importance of forensic science, and facilitating the clarity of the legal language. This shift shows an effort in the modernization of the Indian justice system without abandoning some fundamental values of fairness and procedural discipline.
In comparison, the US has a more relaxed and magistrate-oriented system based on the Federal Rules of Evidence. These provisions allow a judge to exercise more discretion in relevance, probative value/unfair prejudice, and expert testimony reliability. The case of Daubert v.
Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals has enabled judges to become gatekeepers of science, by questioning the testability, peer review, and overall reliability of forensic methods. In this system, it is possible to be flexible to the new scientific approaches without always legislatively changing the law.
The importance of a comparative study of Indian and U.S. evidentiary systems is that both jurisdictions are faced with similar issues like cybercrime, transnational offences, digital fraud, terrorism and scientific uncertainty in criminal trials. Whereas in India, the codified certainty and procedural formalism are stressed, in the United States, the judicial flexibility and case- based development are important. A comparison between the convergence and divergence between these systems shows how various legal cultures address similar evidentiary issues. It also points to the increasing international demand of harmonized standards based on reliability, fairness and respect to human rights.
The analysis of the new principles of forensic evidence with the help of the comparative analysis of India and the United States, therefore, can be taken as one of the great insights into the future of criminal justice. With the ongoing development of science, the law of evidence should be able to balance innovation and due process to ensure that the quest of truth is not at the sacrifice of liberty, dignity, and fairness.
THE CONCEPT AND PURPOSE OF EVIDENCE IN LEGAL SYSTEMS
Evidence is the basic foundation of all legal systems, serving as the main tool of establishing facts and dispensation of justice.1 In civil and criminal cases, a court will rely on evidence to determine the truth of an assertion, to judge the trustworthiness of a party, and to make a just decision. Without an organized system of evidence, the making of legal decisions will be arbitrary, subjective, and unjust;2 therefore, the evidentiary rules are created to not only find the truth but also ensure the protection of personal rights and the integrity of the judicial process. In its simplest form, evidence refers to any resource, oral, documentary or digital that may be presented in a court of law to establish or disprove a controversial fact. Evidence is based on fairness, natural justice and procedural due process. The law of different countries in the world has developed elaborate guidelines on admissibility, presentation and weight of evidence. These structures provide a compromise between two competing goals: first, to allow the relevant and reliable information to help the court and second, to keep out the misleading, prejudicial or ill-acquired information that could create distortions in justice. The main aim of evidence in legal systems is to see to it that rulings are made based on objective facts as opposed to assumptions and individual prejudices. The given role plays a specific role in criminal law as the outcomes can include the freedom of a person, his or her dignity, and even life. The legal evidence is taken seriously, and this is the reason why the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt.
In civil proceeding, where the disputes are generally concerned with the individual rights and duties, the preponderance of probabilities sufficiency reveals a comparatively reasonable but organized form of determining the truth. Procedural due process protection is also another crucial role of evidence. Evidentiary rules ensure that dominant parties are not able to rig results and protect weaker parties against undue disadvantage. To take an example, the ban on hearsay, confessions under duress, and evidence obtained by the unlawful methods is used to defend the rights of people and to maintain the morality of the justice system. These regulations represent the ideology that justice should not just be done but perceived to be done, thus forming the basis of the validity of courts due to fairness and openness. Due to the development of science and technology, the concept of evidence has grown significantly. Old methods like oral test, written records have been complemented with forensic and digital evidence, which encompasses DNA profiling, fingerprints analysis, electronic data, surveillance videos and cyber evidence. As much as such developments make the process of finding facts more accurate, new legal and ethical issues have been presented. The issues with authenticity, chain of custody, reliability of experts, and data protection have become the focal point of the modern evidentiary discourse.
The comparative legal analysis shows that despite the universality of the objective of evidence, methods and standards of evidence differs under different jurisdictions. Common law systems have greater emphasis on presentation in adversarial fashion and cross-examination, whereas civil law systems are more dependent on judicial inquiry and written documentation. These variations demonstrate the influence of legal culture, history, and institutional design on observable evidences of practices. The modern world is marked by a growing globalization where transnational offenses, international litigation, and cross-border-evidence are becoming a common occurrence, and therefore, the harmonization of the fundamental principles of evidence has never been as urgent as it is now. After all, the idea of evidence cannot be discussed outside of the context of the pursuit of justice. It is used to provide a transition between facts and legal conclusions, and this allows courts to be able to use the law fairly and rationally. Evidence is not just created to facilitate the testimony of a single side but aimed to help the court to find the truth and not to violate human rights or the procedural protection. With the current changes in the legal systems, the issue of evidence will keep on playing a central role in balancing between the proper law enforcement and safeguarding the liberties of individuals.
EVIDENTIARY FRAMEWORK IN INDIA: FROM THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 TO CONTEMPORARY REFORMS (BHARATIYA SAKSHYA ADHINIYAM, 2023)
Evidentiary framework India evidentiary framework has gone through a drastic change since colonial times under Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to its contemporary re-articulation with Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Such development is an attempt by India to make its system of delivering justice abreast with the modern technological, social, and constitutional realities without damaging the major tenets of fairness and due process. One of the first attempts at codifying the law of evidence in the common-law tradition was the Indian Evidence Act, 18723, written by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen. It attempted to substitute uneven judicial treatment with a standard of consistency of proof and admissibility which relied on the doctrine of relevance, admissibility and reliability. The categories of evidence including oral and documentary were well defined and the rules on confessions, admissions and cross-examination were made to be strict to increase the objectivity of the judiciary and decrease arbitrariness of criminal and civil proceedings. Nevertheless, as time passed, the shortcomings of the Act of 1872 were revealed, specifically, the fact that electronic and digital evidence4 appeared, and the original Act did not predict this outcome. Information Technology Act, 2000, introduced Section 65A and 65B, which partially responded to the problem in that the electronic records could be admissible under the condition, that some technical certification criteria were met. Cases like Anvar P.V Vs P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash5 65B-Gorantyal also made it clear that certification is mandatory as provided under Section 65B,6 highlighting the importance of the judicial system renewing stale statutory structures to suit the contemporary reality. The other area where there was gradual reform was the judicial interpretation of the burden of proof and circumstantial evidence. Although the original Act provided that, the burden of proving a fact lay on the side that sought to prove it, over time, the more refined principles, like the doctrine of shifting burden under special circumstances, especially where it involved dowry death, custodial death as well as corruption, developed. On the same note, Indian Courts have established tough criteria concerning circumstantial evidence whereby the chain of events must be uncontaminated and indicate clearly towards the culpability of the accused. Such an activism of the judiciary shows how flexible the legal system can be even in a strict codification.
With the adoption of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, it is a strong turn towards an evidence law that is less colonial and more receptive to technology.7 The statute is not only the contemporary version of the language, structure, and approach of evidentiary rules, but it also preserves the basic concepts of relevance and fairness. It clearly acknowledges electronic and digital records as the leading types of evidence, which makes the issues of their admissibility less ambiguous. Unlike the previous reactive amendments, the new law is proactive so that it integrates technology into the evidentiary framework.
Among the most dramatic changes is the recognition of the forensic and scientific evidence, which has been increased under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. The new paradigm is much more explicit on the admissibility of DNA data, fingerprinting, voice evidence, and other forensic methods. This shift is an indication of the increasing application of the scientific approach to criminal-justice systems in countries all over the world, as well as a response to the old arguments of miscarriages of justice through the use of paltry or even pure testimonial evidence.
Adhiniyam also aims at aligning the progress in technology with protection of just trial and constitutional rights. Although it facilitates wider admissibility of electronic and forensic evidence, it perceives the need to ensure authenticity, integrity and chain of custody. These are necessary requirements in the prevention of misuse of the digital resources like the edited videos, the false e-records or the forced confessions captured by technological surveillance. Therefore, the reform is not a simple expansion of state authority but it tries to balance efficiency and personal freedoms.
The other interesting phenomenon is the slow indigenisation of the legal terms and philosophy. Through the substitution of language and titles of the colonial era, the Bharatiya ″Sakshya ″Adhiniyam is an indication of a larger trend of decolonisation of Indian criminal law. This is not just a symbolic act, but an attempt to make the legal procedures more understandable and open to the masses, which will increase the level of trust of the people in the justice system.
To sum up, the discussion of the shift of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, can be seen as one of the steps toward the Indian legal system abandoning a classic colonial pattern of evidentiary law and adopting a more adaptable, more technologically oriented, and more rights-oriented approach to the issue. Although the principles of relevance, admissibility, and fairness are still largely unchanged, the new law will empower the Indian law system to address contemporary issues like cybercrime, digital fraud and complicated forensic investigations. This development highlights the dynamic aspect of the law, and it should be able to evolve with the social change, protecting the main principles of justice.
UNITED STATES VIEWPOINT: THE FLEXIBILITY UNDER THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE (FRE)
The legal system of the United States of America tends to view evidence in a pragmatic and flexible system, which is mainly guided by the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), enacted in the year 1975. The FRE were designed to meet the changing legal reality, scientific development, and practical demands of the modern day litigation as opposed to the inflexible and codified nature of the Indian Evidence Act. This has been seen to be one of the key strengths of the U.S. evidentiary system since they give the judges the flexibility to be discreet and maintain fairness, reliability, and efficiency in the judicial process.
Historical development of Common Law into Codification
Before the FRE, the US was largely dependent on common-law, which was based on the English law. These were mostly judicial in nature, inter-state inconsistent, and, often, unpredictable. Upon the understanding that uniformity was necessary, Congress moved towards adopting the FRE to ensure that there was standardisation of the evidentiary practices in the federal courts. But in contrast to more codified statutes, the FRE were written in such a way that they retained judicial discretion and the courts were thus able to interpret and apply the rules to suit principles of justice and scientific advancement.
The FRE, thus, represent a hybrid model, which is to combine a structured regulation with unrestricted norms. An example is Rule 401 which provides a broad definition of relevant evidence, and Rule 403 which provides the judges with the power to exclude evidence when the probative value is strongly outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice,8 confusion or waste of time. This is a means of showing that it is flexible and constructed within the framework.
Standards of Proof Under the U.S system
The U.S. system acknowledges various standards of evidence, which can vary according to the type of case, which makes it more flexible and fair:
1. Preponderance of Evidence – Applied in civil cases, it should be found that a given fact is more probable than not true (has a more than 50% likelihood of being true).
2. Beyond a reasonable doubt- This is applied in criminal cases and is the highest standard because the consequences of conviction are very serious.
3. Clear and Convincing Evidence – It is an intermediate standard where serious rights are involved, such as civil fraud or that of termination of parental rights.
This level system enables the courts to tune the degree of certainty needed based on the nature and nature of the dispute and it is a typical feature of U.S approach.
Role of Judicial Discretion
The broad discretion afforded to judges is, perhaps, the most unusual aspect of the FRE. Judges also serve as gatekeepers of evidence and make sure that the jury is subjected to only reliable and relevant material. The leading case in Supreme Court, Daubert v. affirmed this role. The case, Merrell Dow, Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993), created the principle that judges have to examine the scientific reasonableness and consistency of expert testimony prior to its testimony.
The Daubert standard brought the following aspects:
1. Testability of the theory or the technique.
2. Peer review and publication
3. Recognized or possible error rates.
4. Acceptance in the scientific world.
The framework enables the courts to keep up with new scientific practices, such as DNA analysis, digital forensics, and new technologies, without legal changes.
Liberation of Expert and Scientific Evidence
According to the FRE, specifically Rules 702 through 705, there are general guidelines regarding to when individuals may testify as experts in court. If the trier of fact can benefit from the testimony, it may be admitted. The court has the ability to assess the reliability of an expert’s methodology, not their credentials. This is especially true in the field of forensics, where advancements in science occur at an accelerated pace.
With regard to forensic DNA testing, fingerprinting, ballistic analysis, and digital forensics, all of these methods must be evaluated based on their reliability as well as their relevance. Therefore, the court has the ability to reject false science while permitting the development of reliable and valid methods of forensic sciences that continue to change and improve over time.
Hearsay and Hearsay Exceptions Treatment
The other flexibility issue is the treatment of hearsay evidence. Although the hearsay rule is not allowed by the Rule 802, the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) include many exceptions in the Rules 803, 804, and 807. These exceptions allow the admission of hearsay in cases where the evidence is deemed to be reliable, including:
1. Business records
2. Public records
3. Dying declarations
4. anti-interest statements.
5. Excited utterances
It is a balance in this system between strict protection against unreliable testimony and exceptions that are sensible and useful to the administration of justice.
Digital and Electronic Evidence
The FRE has developed, also, in order to fit in the modern digital environment. Electronic records, e-mails, metadata, social media content, and evidence of digital forensic are now covered by amendments and judicial interpretations. The authentication procedures represented in Rules 901 and 902 permit both manual and technologically advanced procedures of defining the integrity of electronic evidence.9
The adaptability of the FRE guarantees that the novel types of proofs can be received by the courts without assisting in rewriting the legislation every time the technological advancement happens, therefore, making the U.S. legal system exceptionally receptive to cybercrime, cyber-souping, and cross-border inquiries.
Balancing Fairness and Jury-Centric System
Considering the fact that the United States depends on the jury trials, the FRE is aimed at protecting juries against misguidance and unwarranted emotional appeal. Rule 403 gives the judges the ability to omit evidence that can lead to unfair prejudice or false impression to the jury despite the fact that it is technically relevant. This balancing system will see to it that the flexibility does not interfere with fairness.
Influential Case Law
This flexible framework has been developed by several landmark cases:
1. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) – Judicial gate-keeping of the scientific evidence.10
2. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) – Daubert to be extended to technical and specialized knowledge.11
3. Frye v. United States (1923) – Previous standard of general acceptance, which remains in effect in certain state courts.12
These instances illustrate the process through which the judicial interpretation keeps on perfecting the use of the FRE.
The U.S. approach to evidence, which is regulated by the Federal Rules of Evidence is a flexible and dynamic system that promotes fairness, reliability and justice. Its inherent elasticity, judicial discretion, tolerance to new science, and perspective to technological improvements make it very responsive to the current issues of law. This flexibility makes innovation and fairness easy, but a very high-competence judicial control is required to avoid inconsistency. In sum, the FRE model is a powerful model of structure flexibility in the world, and it is very effective.
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: EVIDENTIARY THRESHOLDS CONVERGENCE AND DIVERGENCE
The comparative study of the evidentiary thresholds in India and the United States indicates considerable points of agreement, but also significant points of deviation that indicate their different legal and constitutional cultures and institutional interests. In spite of the common historical basis of both jurisdictions in the common-law system, the current evidentiary systems have changed in reaction to various social, technological, and legal issues.
One of the main points of intersection is the similarity in the adherence to the principles of fair trials and due process of the law. According to the law of both the Indian and the U.S, evidence should be reliable, relevant, and legal to ensure justice. Both jurisdictions have been observed to have the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases,13 a measure that indicates that is keen on the rights of the accused. In the same vein, both systems in civil cases are based on the balance of probabilities even though the balance of probabilities is applied differently in practice. Those similarities mirror shared inherited philosophy of law, which puts special emphasis on judicial equity, transparency, and reasoned decision making.
The second notable area of intersection is the increased dependence on scientific and forensic evidence. Both nations are trending towards the use of DNA analysis, fingerprinting, ballistics and digital forensics as a means to prove guilt or innocence. In India and the U.S, expert testimony and the application of scientific techniques has emerged as a key area of activity by courts because they have realized that common sense testimony is not always dependable. This commonality is evidence that the world is moving towards evidence-based adjudication due to the development of forensic science and technology. 14
The differences between the two systems are more pronounced and structural however. India adheres to a very codified and strict statutory law with its origins going back to the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which has since been updated to the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. Indian practice focuses more on the rigorous statutory provisions on admissibility, relevancy, as well as exclusion of evidence. Judicial discretion, despite it, is largely influenced by written law. This inflexibility aims at consistency, less arbitrariness and a legal predictability in a heterogeneous and large judicial system.
The United States, by contrast, follows a more liberal approach and judge-oriented model of the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). The American courts provide the judges with broader discretion in determining relevance, probative value and the possible prejudice of evidence. The FRE provides the opportunity to balance the evidentiary value with the risks of unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time. Such flexibility has been indicative of the U.S. legal culture of focusing on judicial logic, adversarial defense, and reinterpretations of justice. Consequently there are more adaptable evidences in the U.S. in regard to the evolving social realities and evidence forms.
There is also a great difference in handling digital and electronic evidence. Although the two nations acknowledge the significance of electronic records, India has stronger formalities that are statutory in nature like; certification of electronic evidence by law. The Indian system is focused on the compliance of procedures in order to provide authenticity. The U.S. is more concerned with chain of custody and the reliability standards as opposed to strict certification rules. The dissimilar method indicates dissimilar issues: India is more concerned with preventing manipulation and forgery by formal means whereas the U.S. is more focused on practical trial of the reliability in court.
The other very important distinction is the influence of constitutional and human rights jurisprudence. The Fourth Amendment is one of the constitutional provisions in the United States that substantially affect the level of evidence, particularly in the context of the illicit search and seizure. The exclusionary rule and the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree tend to exclude any evidence that was acquired violating the constitutional rights. India, though understanding fundamental rights in its Constitution, has been more reserved historically in exclusion of illegally obtained evidence with the need to determine the truth being a priority in most of the cases. This is an indication of a shift in the balance between state authority and rights of individuals.
In spite of these variations, globalization and transnational crime are slowly converging into the two systems. Cybercrime, terrorism, human trafficking, and cross-border financial crimes are some of the issues that must have common standards of proof and admissibility. The inter-jurisdictional relations and judicial discussions have made both jurisdictions lean towards meeting international best practices in forensic science and digital investigations. The recent reforms of India show that the country is shifting to more flexibility and modernization and the U.S. courts are becoming more sensitive to the standardization and scientific reliability.
In summary, while there are some fundamental similarities between the evidence philosophies of the United States and India, their evidentiary levels differ greatly in terms of their structure, flexibility, and constitutional significance. Whereas the United States favors judicial discretion and practical balancing, India favors codified certainty and procedural formalism. However, the new trend causes a gradual convergence of forces with the advancement of technology, international human rights relations, and the global search for just and efficient justice.
INDIAN CASE LAWS
1. Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010)15
In India, the constitutional limits on the use of forensic evidence are defined by a case decided by the Supreme Court, which found that an individual’s right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and their right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) are violated if the person is forced to submit to a polygraph test, Brain Electrical Activity Profile (BEAP) test, or narcoanalysis. The case further illustrates a rights-based approach to forensic evidence in India as opposed to the factors used in the Daubert ruling by courts in the United States to determine the validity of scientific evidence.
2. State of H.P. v. Rajiv Jassi (2016)16
The Supreme Court found DNA profiling a highly reliable form of forensic evidence to establish
identity in the context of a criminal trial and stressed the importance of following prescribed procedures for collecting, storing, and testing DNA evidence to maintain its integrity. As such, the collection, storage, and analysis of DNA evidence should be in compliance with the uniform standards established by the Supreme Court of the USA regarding the admissibility of DNA evidence (i.e., chain-of-custody, laboratory standards, and expert testimony). As such, this case represents the gradual development of forensic evidence in India toward the establishment of scientific rigor in the study of forensic evidence.
3. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014)17
This case is important for contemporary forensic science, particularly digital forensics, even though it focuses mostly on electronic evidence. According to Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the Supreme Court ruled that electronic records are only admissible if they are accompanied by a certificate. Strict compliance standards for the integrity and authenticity of forensic digital evidence were established by this decision. While India adopts a more formal statutory compliance model, in contrast to the flexible judicial discretion under U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, this reflects concerns similar to authentication and reliability of forensic digital evidence when compared to U.S. law.
CONCLUSION
Comparative analysis of forensic evidence in the Indian and the United States centralizes the turning point of the modern evidentiary law. With crimes becoming more and more international and more based on the application of technologically advanced means, the necessity of the harmonisation of evidentiary norms has never been as the greatest as now. Both jurisdictions exhibit a desire to pursue the truth and fairness, but they are very different in terms of structure, discretion in judicial power and flexibility. The future of evidentiary law must involve harmonising evidentiary laws based on principles, allowing for limited adaptability by the courts.
The introduction of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 from the previous Indian Evidence Act, 1872 shows that the country is moving towards modernising its legal infrastructure in India. Furthermore, with all the countries wanting to be in line with the rest of the world through the inclusion of new and current types of evidence, the increased use of forensic science, electronic and digital evidence and modern tools in the legal process indicate that India is looking to be in line with other nations. Additionally, as Judge is allowed more discretion using the US Federal Rules of Evidence, with a flexible precedent system as a guide and rule in the areas of forensic and scientific evidence, this demonstrates a balance between what is predictable and what is flexible through codification of a rigid system of evidentiary law in India versus that of a flexible judicial system in the United States.
Creating a uniform law system is not the goal of harmonizing laws. Rather, the objective of harmonizing laws is to create dependable, equitable, and protective of human rights across all jurisdictions through the establishment of harmonized law standards. Close collaboration among legal systems is going to be essential to combatting global problems such as cybercrime, international terrorism, money laundering, and organized crime.
In order for mutual legal assistance agreements, extradition agreements, and transnational investigations to function successfully, they must create some form of compatibility relating to evidence processing. Absent harmonization, useful forensic evidence may be excluded because of procedural incompatibilities, thereby inhibiting the administration of justice.
Judicial flexibility in policing is critical to this process. Courts will no longer function merely as interpretative bodies for static statutes; rather, courts will evolve into dynamic forms of jurisprudence that reflect the evolving scientific landscape. Indian and American courts have progressively become dependent on expert testimony, scientific requirements and technological evidence, and have become aware of the possibilities of false positives, contamination and misuse. Critical examination of forensic methods, chain of custody and reliability of the expert witness has grown as an important protection against miscarriage of justice. There is a changing perception of the need to look beyond scientific validity of forensic evidence to have legal reliability as evidenced by landmark judicial trends in both jurisdictions.
In addition, the impact of international human rights jurisprudence on the two countries has affected the evidentiary standards. The rights to a fair trial, presumption of innocence and protection against self-incrimination require forensic evidence to be gathered and introduced in a way that does not belittle the dignity of the individual. This intersecting of constitutional rights principles and the human rights principles enhances the argument to have harmonised forensic standards which are based on fairness and not efficiency. Technology is mighty but it should be under ethical and legal limits.
To sum up, it can be concluded that the future of forensic evidence consists of coordinated evolution not in individual reforms. India is able to study the valuable lessons that the American model is flexible and based on precedent and the United States is able to study the lesson, which is that India has a detailed statutory codification. The judicial innovation, legislative reforms and international cooperation should collaborate to develop a balanced and future-oriented evidentiary system. Judicial adjustment contributes to harmonisation whereby justice is not only effective but also fair in a wider and more global legal environment.
*****
Footnotes
1. T. Anderson, D.A. Schum & W. Twining, Analysis of Evidence (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
2. William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (Clarendon Press, 1765)
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
4. Law Commission of India, 185th Report on Review of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (2003)
5. Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1 (India)
6. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473 (India)
7. Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023
8. Federal Rules of Evidence, 1975 (United States), Rules 401–403
9. Federal Rules of Evidence, 1975 (U.S.), Rules 901 & 902
10. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
11. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
12. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
13. Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1935] AC 462 (HL); see also Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Law of Evidence (LexisNexis, 27th ed., 2023).
14. M.J. Saks & J.J. Koehler, “The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science”, Science, Vol. 309 (2005), pp. 892–895
15. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, (2010) 7 SCC 263
16. State of H.P. v. Rajiv Jassi, (2016) 12 SCC 701
17. Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473