Abstract

The introduction of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) has significantly transformed court proceedings related to expert evidence, broadening the scope of the term “experts”. It is no longer constrained to specific fields, a long-overdue acknowledgment of scientific and technological advancements. Nevertheless, such evidence, including forensics, is not conclusive proof and has a high corroborative threshold. This paper engages in a doctrinal analysis of the laws and controversies regarding the two most lucrative areas of illegal trade- wildlife crimes and narcotics, emphasizing the Indian scenario. In both cases, forensics plays an important role. DNA-based wildlife forensics has progressed, seemingly, facilitating the process of species/herd identification in wildlife crimes like poaching. Even developing countries like India have incorporated such methods. However, have the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and other procedural laws evolved accordingly? Are the State’s policies and infrastructural facilities advanced enough to collect, culture, profile, and detail delicate DNA evidence, susceptible to sample contamination and degradation? Does the present wildlife database provide sufficient reference data for the authorities to proceed and prosecute with this not-so-nascent yet globally accepted scientific technology? Narcotics forensics is another evolving field contributing to establishing guilt, dismantling drug trade networks, evaluating drug abuse, etc. Who qualifies as an expert in such cases, to minimize wrongful convictions? What are the admissibility standards where evidence tampering is prevalent but uniform protocols are absent? How can complex forensic evidence be made comprehensible to judges? These are some questions this paper endeavours to answer while providing legal and policy suggestions.

Keywords