STUDY ON THE USE OF DNA EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM BY - MEDHA SARKAR
STUDY ON
THE USE OF DNA EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
AUTHORED BY
- MEDHA SARKAR
UGC Junior Research Fellow, PhD
Research Scholar,
Gauhati University, Guwahati, Assam, India
ABSTRACT
Law
enforcement faces challenges in preventing illicit misuse of scientific
technology, even though it has transformed daily life. Forensic science,
particularly DNA technology, is extensively utilised in modern criminal
investigations. This investigation examines the way the Criminal Justice System
(CJS) in India has implemented DNA evidence over the years. This study employs
a doctrinal approach that synthesises academic sources' findings to investigate
the use of DNA in criminal cases, from the collection of DNA at crime sites to
the resolution of paternity issues. Although DNA evidence is undeniably
valuable, there are still uncertainties regarding its impact on the right to
privacy and a fair trial, as well as statistical reliability and sample contamination.
This study recommends a middle ground strategy to completely realise the
potential of DNA while simultaneously safeguarding individual rights. The CJS
of India will be strengthened to withstand the challenges of the present day
and to ensure that judicial decisions are equitable.
Keywords: DNA evidence, Crime, Criminal
Justice, Forensics.
INTRODUCTION
Life for
the average person has changed drastically due to technological advancements in
science. Along with the good things about these technological improvements in
terms of lifestyle and infrastructure, they have also made it harder for law
enforcement to stop criminals from abusing these tools to do their crimes.
Substantial scientific evidence is provided by the scientific examination of
the exhibits. Forensic science refers to the scientific methods used in
criminal investigations. In numerous cases, these technological developments
were discovered to significantly affect the fair administration of justice. But
the CJS can undergo a radical transformation with the prudent application of
technology. Many innocent people were spared from conviction due to the use of
forensics, as is seen from the literature.[1]
There are
a lot of new opportunities in forensic genetics since deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA) was discovered. In legal proceedings, DNA evidence has proven to be an
effective investigative tool in determining guilt or innocence. The lack of
clear legal justifications for the use of DNA technology in routine acts of
jurisdiction has given rise to a new concern regarding the DNA evidence's legal
standing in India. There are a few laws that cover it now, but India has been
trying to pass new ones since 2003. This article discusses the new problems
that have arisen because of using scientific knowledge to the CJS, including
the necessity of a DNA prosecution bill and additional changes to the current
legislation.[2]
Figure 1: Timeline of developments in
DNA technology: an overview. (Kumar et al., 2016)
Research
Methodology
In this
research paper, doctrinal approach is used to gather data from secondary
sources. Journals, papers, internet sources, and research articles are used to
gather and analyse the data. The sources have contributed to a better
understanding of DNA evidence and its function in enhancing the criminal
justice system in India. The article's research materials include scholarly
articles, journals, and online resources that discuss the significance of DNA
evidence in India's criminal justice system, as well as the evolution of DNA
technology and its function in determining guilt in various seminal cases.
Understanding
DNA Evidence
When it
comes to solving crimes, DNA evidence has always been essential. This evidence
can be retrieved from any kind of bodily cell that is unintentionally left
behind at the site of the crime. To identify the criminal, forensic specialists
must examine the scene, gather evidence, extract the DNA, and run a DNA
profiling study. These pieces of evidence are so detailed that they can establish
guilt or innocence, or even the involvement of an accused in a crime.
In
situations involving murder or sexual assault, DNA evidence is typically
utilised for the purpose of convict identification. As seen in the
Priyadarshini Mattoo case[3], it is
possible to establish guilt or innocence in cases of sexual assault or rape by
comparing semen samples taken from the victim's body with those of the accused.
As was seen in the 19924 Rajiv Gandhi assassination, where DNA analysis
positively identified the prime minister's and the perpetrator's remains
despite extensive trauma sustained in the explosion, it can also be used to
identify victims or accused based on mangled portions.
Establishing
a child's biological parents is another common use of DNA evidence. A person's
DNA is their unique composition that they inherit from their parents, as
previously said. The bond between a parent and child can thus be depicted using
it. A paternity dispute involving support payments under Section 125[4] of
CrPC was at the heart of the case Gautama Khaddu v. State of West Bengal[5].
It was in
the case of Colin Pitchfork[6] in
Leicestershire that DNA profiling was initially used. Two women were victims of
sexual assault and subsequent murder in the years 1983 and 1986. On the
suspicion that the two murders were carried out in a similar fashion, the
authorities requested that Sir Alec Jeffreys, the creator of the DNA profiling
technology, analyse the samples taken from the victims' bodies using this
approach. It was determined that one person had committed both killings since
the semen samples taken from the victims' bodies were found to be identical. In
addition, Richard Buckland, the primary suspect, was found not guilty of the
murder according to the results. After DNA evidence cleared his name, he was
the first to be released from prison. After that, everyone in that area was
asked to give samples for testing, which, although looking at 5,000 samples,
turned out to be useless. Following this, a witness related overhearing a
discussion in which a man claimed to have given a sample on behalf of his
friend Colin Pitchfork. Colin Pitchfork was ultimately found guilty of the
murders of the two ladies when his DNA matched that found on the victims'
bodies.[7]
Importance
of DNA evidence in criminal trials in India
Under the
Indian Evidence Act[8], all
Indian state and jurisdictional entities consistently follow the rules. It
includes uniform regulations for criminal and civil proceedings. Although all
trials are governed by the same regulations, the requirements for the burden of
proof may differ between civil and criminal cases. When it comes to criminal
jurisdiction, the Indian legal system follows the principle of onus probandi.
Until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is presumed
innocent. The inclusion of the idea of Onus Probandi[9] in
the Indian Evidence Act has severely limited the use of forensic evidence.
For
adjudicating criminal procedures in India, two fundamental procedural statutes
are the Criminal Procedure Code[10]
and the Indian Evidence Act[11].
From the commission of the crime to the finding of guilt or innocence, the
whole process is covered by the CrPC[12].
After reviewing the evidence presented in court, judicial magistrates reach a
final verdict after carefully considering all relevant factors. Only evidence
submitted by the prosecution or the defendant is eligible to be used under the
Indian Evidence Act. The Act specifies which forms of evidence can be used in
criminal proceedings. According to Section 45[13],
expert opinions are considered evidence, and Section 46[14]
specifies that pertinent facts that support or contradict expert judgements
should be evaluated.
The fields
of forensic identification (DNA testing), forensic entomology, forensic
dentistry, forensic pathology, and forensic toxicology are all part of the
forensic science toolbox when it comes to criminal cases. To look at specific
parts of DNA, scientists use the STR approach. It helps to differentiate
between various DNA profiles. Mitochondrial DNA analysis (mtDNA) looks at the
genetic profile that's been taken out of things like hair, bones, and teeth; Y
chromosome 10 research is used to add genetic markers and track several male
donors.[15]
As a
subfield of forensic science, entomology helps determine how and why people
die. This specific gadget pinpoints the exact spots where the incident
occurred, checks for the presence of harmful substances or drugs, and
determines whether there was medical negligence that led to the victim's death.
The field of forensic odontology focuses on the analysis of bite marks and
teeth. Bite mark crimes can be better understood with its help in identifying
the age and features of the perpetrator. Bite mark analysis is a challenging
method for identifying the abuser in child abuse situations. (Singh & Singh,
2019)
In the
1975 Kerala case of Vasu versus Santha[16], a blood
test of the accused proved the children's validity. Particular protection is
accorded to the verification of legitimacy status in India. Cases involving the
legal status of a child are subject to the strictest scrutiny by the courts. A
child's legitimacy cannot be established only by proof of a mother's adultery.
While deciding on the kid's legitimacy, the level of evidence must be
considered. In the Vasu case, the blood test proved that Vasu was really
Santha's biological father. The court found Vasu to be financially liable to
his wife for the care and upbringing of their children after reviewing the
findings of the blood tests.
In the
1995 Delhi Tandoor Murder Case[17], alleged
killer Shushil Sharma shot and killed his wife Naina Sahni three times in the
chest and head. The fact that Sushil thought she was seeing Matloob Karim led
him to murder her. After killing Naina, Sushil wrapped her corpse and took it
to the Bagiya eatery. The accused chopped up the corpse and set fire to the
parts in the outdoor tandoor oven of the eatery. Nevertheless, the burning
possession was halted after the local policeman issued a caution due to smoke
and odours. Aside from Sushil's bloodstained clothes, the authorities also
found the revolver he used. They also compared the bloodstains on the deceased
person's head and neck to blood samples taken from Sahni's parents. The body
was positively identified as belonging to Naina Sahni by DNA testing,
bloodstains on the clothing, and Sahni's parents. The court found Sushil guilty
and sentenced him to death after DNA testing established a match between
Naina's blood and that found on Sahni's parents' clothing and the body. The
death sentence was then changed to life in prison after further appeals.[18]
Sister
Abhaya's corpse was found outside the kitchen area of the church where she
lived in the 1995 murder case in Kerala[19].
A member of St. Joseph's Congregation for women under the Knanaya Catholic
diocese of Kottayam, Sister Abhaya was a 19-year-old woman. Up at the crack of
dawn, she would get ready for her test. Despite her customary early morning
study session, she made a diversion to the dormitory to fetch water on the
fateful day. Her body was later recovered from a well outside the kitchen after
she was reported missing. The girl was fatally hacked to death with an axe,
according to forensic investigations that included narco-analysis, polygraph
testing, and brain fingerprinting. The murder of Abhaya was brought against two
fathers under Sections 302[20],
201[21],
and 34[22]
of the Indian Penal Code. The importance of forensic evidence in reaching fair
and effective lawsuit settlements is highlighted by case analysis. Forensic
evidence is becoming increasingly important in legal procedures, and this must
be taken into account.
An
important turning point in Indian judicial history occurred in the case of
Kunhiraman vs. Manoj[23].
"The evidence of the expert is admissible under sec. 45 of the Indian
Evidence Act," the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) cited the DNA expert's
conclusion in this case. Accordingly, under Section 51[24]
of the Indian Evidence Act, the basis upon which the conclusion is reached is
also significant. I fail to see any reason to reject PW4's findings because he
is a molecular biology expert and because it is so compelling. If the opinion
of a fingerprint expert or a chemical analyzer is considered credible, then the
opinion of PW4, who is an expert in cellular and molecular biology, is likewise
acceptable. The child's biological father was determined to be Mr. Kunhiraman.
The Kerala High Court heard an appeal of this decision and affirmed it.[25]
In the
case of Kantidev vs. Poshiram[26],
which had a paternity dispute as well, the court made it plain that "The
result of a genuine DNA test is said to be scientifically accurate." That,
however, is insufficient to evade the conclusiveness of Section 112[27]
of the Act; for example, even if a husband and wife were cohabitating at the
moment of conception, a DNA test might still prove that the kid was not born to
the husband. The husband may find it difficult to accept paternity of a child
who is not his biological offspring. If the mother and her husband were
cohabitating when the child was conceived, the law protects the child from
being bastardised even in this scenario. So, using the definitions of access
and non-access given above, we can answer the question of how strong the
evidence of non-access needs to be to refute the certainty.[28]
Limitations
of DNA Evidence
Although
DNA technology's use in the criminal justice system is an absolute need, there
are many who are critical of this innovative tool. There is still no clear
answer as to whether or not DNA evidence violates the Indian and American
constitutional guarantees of a fair trial and the right against incrimination.
The statistical probabilities are another source of worry. Some have questioned
whether it is possible to convict someone based on likelihood alone, regardless
of how remote the possibility that two individuals will share a profile may be.
Even if science were perfect, the outcome of a scientific forensic examination
would still be subject to human error and the possibility of evidence
manipulation or tampering.[29]
DNA
evidence cannot prove the perpetrator's mens rea, but it can show whether they
were present or participated in the crime. But it helps with investigations by
ruling out potential suspects, which is particularly useful given the ways in
which crimes are being committed. Also, it's not dependable to rely on DNA data
that has been contaminated due to poor sample quality, damage from processing, or
exposure to biological stimuli. The supplied samples must be stored
meticulously to avoid contamination from the crime scene, which is a crucial
part of DNA profiling.[30]
CONCLUSION
A major
step forward has been the use of DNA technology into India's Criminal Justice
System, which provides accurate means of identifying offenders and guaranteeing
justice. The lack of specific legislative rules is a major concern, even if it
has been successful in resolving criminal cases. The importance of a thorough
DNA profiling bill and changes to improve the regulatory environment for
forensic procedures is highlighted by this research. This research has
underlined the crucial importance of DNA in determining guilt or innocence,
resolving paternity disputes, and improving judicial certainty through
doctrinal analysis and case studies. Privacy, fair trial rights, and forensic
evidence dependability are still issues that need to be carefully considered
and implemented with a balanced approach.Going ahead, lawmakers, solicitors and
forensic science professionals must work together to create and pass strong
laws that tackle these issues. In addition to strengthening DNA evidence's
legitimacy and admissibility, these measures would maintain constitutional
norms and guarantee fair outcomes in India's pursuit of justice. Ultimately,
DNA technology has great potential to improve criminal investigations. However,
for it to be fully used, lawmakers must take aggressive steps to protect
individuals' rights and ensure that the criminal justice system remains fair.
REFERENCES
1. Srivastava, A., Harshey, A., Das, T., Kumar, A.,
Yadav, M. M., & Shrivastava, P. (2022). Impact of DNA evidence in
criminal justice system: Indian legislative perspectives. Egyptian Journal
of Forensic Sciences/Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-022-00309-y
2. Kumar, S., Verma, A. K., Singh, P., & Singh, R.
(2016). Current
scenario of forensic DNA databases in or outside India and their relative risk.
Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences/Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences,
6(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejfs.2015.03.002
3. Titus,
N. G. S. (2023). The role and importance of DNA evidence in the Indian criminal
justice system. Indian Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 17(4),
30–35. https://doi.org/10.37506/ijfmt.v17i4.19937.
4. Forensic
Architecture, & Weizman, E. (2017). VIOLENCE AT THE THRESHOLD OF
DETECTABILITY. ZONE BOOKS. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/3109117/5.-Weizman-Forensic-Architecture-2017.pdf
5. Kapila,
P., & Aulakh, R. (2018). DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: AN APPRAISAL OF INITIATIVES IN
INDIA [Journal-article]. International Journal of Research in Social
Sciences, 8(4), 512–515. https://www.ijmra.us/project%20doc/2018/IJRSS_APRIL2018/IJMRA-13604.pdf.
6. Verma, S. K., & Goswami, G. K. (2014). DNA
evidence: Current perspective and future challenges in India. Forensic
Science International, 241, 183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.05.016.
7. Sanmiha,
L., & Yokesh, M. (2018). A Study On Role Of Dna Technology In Criminal
Investigation [Journal-article]. International Journal of Pure and Applied
Mathematics, 120–120(5), 4433–4453. https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/4/366.pdf
Cases
1. Santosh
Kumar Singh v. State through CBI (2010) 9 SCC 747.
2. AIR
1993 SC 2295.
3.
R
v Pitchfork [2009] EWCA Crim 963
4. Vasu
V/s. Santha, 1975 ker L.T. 533
5. State
vs Sushil Sharma on 19 February, 2007
6. Sr.
Sephy vs Union Of India on 1 January, 2009
7. Kunhiraman
vs Manoj on 27 February, 1991
8. Smt.
Kamti Devi & Anr vs Poshi Ram Respondent, Appeal (civil) 3860 of 2001.
Acts
and Statutes
1. Section
125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
2. Indian
Evidence Act, 1872
3. The
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. Indian
Evidence Act, 1872
5. The
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
6. Section
45 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
7. Section
46 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
8. Section
302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
9. Section
201 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
10. Section
34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
11. Section
51 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
12. Section
112 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Websites
1. https://getlegalbuddies.com/blog/onus-probandi-legal-concept-explained/
[1]
Srivastava, A., Harshey, A., Das, T., Kumar, A., Yadav, M. M., &
Shrivastava, P. (2022). Impact
of DNA evidence in criminal justice system: Indian legislative perspectives. Egyptian
Journal of Forensic Sciences/Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 12(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41935-022-00309-y
[2]
Kumar, S., Verma, A. K., Singh, P., & Singh, R. (2016). Current scenario of forensic DNA
databases in or outside India and their relative risk. Egyptian Journal of
Forensic Sciences/Egyptian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 6(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejfs.2015.03.002
[3] Santosh Kumar Singh v. State
through CBI (2010) 9 SCC 747.
[4] Section 125 in The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973
[5] AIR 1993 SC 2295.
[6] R v Pitchfork [2009] EWCA Crim 963
[7] Titus, N. G. S. (2023). The role
and importance of DNA evidence in the Indian criminal justice system. Indian
Journal of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 17(4), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.37506/ijfmt.v17i4.19937
[8] Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[9]
https://getlegalbuddies.com/blog/onus-probandi-legal-concept-explained/
[10] The Code Of Criminal Procedure,
1973
[11] Indian Evidence Act, 1872
[12] The Code Of Criminal Procedure,
1973
[13] Section 45 in The Indian Evidence
Act, 1872
[14] Section 46 in The Indian Evidence
Act, 1872
[15] Forensic Architecture, &
Weizman, E. (2017). VIOLENCE AT THE THRESHOLD OF DETECTABILITY. ZONE
BOOKS. https://law.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/3109117/5.-Weizman-Forensic-Architecture-2017.pdf
[16] Vasu V/s. Santha, 1975 ker L.T.
533
[17] State vs Sushil Sharma on 19
February, 2007
[18] Kapila, P., & Aulakh, R.
(2018). DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: AN APPRAISAL OF INITIATIVES IN INDIA
[Journal-article]. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences,
8(4), 512–515. https://www.ijmra.us/project%20doc/2018/IJRSS_APRIL2018/IJMRA-13604.pdf
[19] Sr. Sephy vs Union Of India on 1
January, 2009
[20] Section 302 in The Indian Penal
Code, 1860
[21] Section 201 in The Indian Penal
Code, 1860
[22] Section 34 in The Indian Penal
Code, 1860
[23] Kunhiraman vs Manoj on 27
February, 1991
[24] Section 51 in The Indian Evidence
Act, 1872
[25] Supra note 1
[26] Smt. Kamti Devi & Anr vs Poshi
Ram Respondent, Appeal (civil) 3860 of 2001.
[27] Section 112 in The Indian Evidence
Act, 1872
[28]
Verma, S. K., & Goswami, G. K. (2014). DNA evidence: Current perspective and future
challenges in India. Forensic Science International, 241,
183–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.05.016
[29] Sanmiha, L., & Yokesh, M.
(2018). A Study On Role Of Dna Technology In Criminal Investigation
[Journal-article]. International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
120–120(5), 4433–4453. https://acadpubl.eu/hub/2018-120-5/4/366.pdf
[30] Supra note 7