Open Access Research Article
WHEN SCIENCE MEETS HUMAN JUDGMENT: COGNITIVE BIAS IN FORENSIC EXAMINATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR FAIR TRIALS IN INDIA
Abstract
Forensic science is frequently presented in criminal proceedings as an objective means of connecting a person, object, or event with a crime.
Yet forensic examination is not always
a mechanical process. In many disciplines, trained
examiners must interpret ambiguous patterns, compare imperfect samples, assess
the significance of findings, and decide whether the available material
supports a conclusion. Those decisions can be influenced by contextual
information, expectations, prior conclusions, workload, fatigue, institutional
practices, and ordinary cognitive processes. The risk is not necessarily deliberate misconduct; it may arise
when information that is not scientifically necessary for a particular
examination changes the way evidence is perceived or interpreted.
This paper examines cognitive bias in forensic
examination and its implications for fair criminal trials in India. It adopts a
doctrinal and analytical methodology, drawing on the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023, constitutional principles, Indian judicial decisions on expert
evidence, and published scientific literature. It does not conduct a questionnaire, interview, or original field
survey. The paper explains confirmation bias, contextual bias,
expectation effects, and tunnel vision; considers the relevance and limits of
research in fingerprint examination, DNA interpretation, bloodstain-pattern
analysis, and other forensic fields; and evaluates the Indian legal framework
governing expert opinion.
Decisions such as State of H.P. v. Jai Lal and Ramesh Chandra Agrawal
v. Regency Hospital Ltd. establish general principles concerning expert
evidence, but they do not create a specific, settled Indian doctrine
on cognitive bias in forensic
laboratories. That distinction is central to the analysis.
The paper argues that the legal admissibility of an
expert opinion should not be confused with the scientific reliability of the
method, the validity of its
application to a particular case, or the strength of the conclusion expressed. Indian courts can address cognitive-bias risks through reasoned
scrutiny of methodology, disclosure of limitations, effective cross-examination, access to relevant underlying material, and cautious
evaluation of conclusions that depend substantially on subjective
interpretation. At the institutional level, context management, sequential
unmasking, independent verification, documented decision-making, proficiency
testing, and quality assurance can reduce avoidable risks. The paper concludes that fairness
does not require courts to reject forensic science; it requires them to understand both its value and its
human limits.
Published Paper
Author Details
Authors: DIKSHARegistration ID: 1013484 | Published Paper ID: IJLRA13484Approved ISSN: 2582-6433 | Country: Delhi, IndiaPage No.: 2695-2721
Article Information
WHEN SCIENCE MEETS HUMAN JUDGMENT: COGNITIVE BIAS IN FORENSIC EXAMINATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR FAIR TRIALS IN INDIA
Authors: DIKSHA
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Volume 3
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- AbbreviationIJLRA
- ISSN2582-6433
- AccessOpen Access
- LicenseCC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.