Justice is the fulcrum for a democratic and peace-loving society. The trilogy of ‘Justice’, ‘Truth’ and ‘Evidence’ is central to the criminal justice system (CJS). Truth behind a fact is essential for delivering justice, but both justice and truth are abstract and intangible concepts. Evidence provides tangibility to the truth behind a fact, making it indispensable for judge to deliver justice.
Ocular testimony is generally considered primary evidence, but oral evidence is susceptible to challenges such as personal vendetta, misrepresentation of the fact, hostility etc. which can lead to miscarriage of justice. Forensic evidence, with its scientific validation, neutrality and reproducibility, has established itself as a credible means of corroboration facts over time.
Scientific aid in investigation constitutes forensic justice. Recently, the Indian Parliament has enacted three major criminal laws, repealing the archaic laws of British origin. Enforced from July 1, 2024, the new laws have adopted Indian cultural ethos, marking a paradigm shift from ‘punishment’ to ‘justice’. Forensic evidence is considered expert opinion, but the term ‘expert’ has not defined under section 45 of the old Indian Evidence Act, 1872 nor in section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 leading to interpretational conundrums. In the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Lal (1999), the Supreme Court of India explained the phrase ‘specially skilled’ as mentioned in the above stated sections 45 and 39, determining it based on education and experience
in the relevant domain. Section 176(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 mandates that a forensic expert must visit the crime scene for offences punishable for seven years or more. This legal provision reflects faith of the law makers in scientific investigation. However, it necessitates the development of forensic facilities, including well-equipped laboratories and trained man power, to meet emerging needs.
Consequently, budding forensic experts now have ample job opportunities in India. The admissibility of forensic evidence depends upon its reliability and validity. The integrity of samples is vital, necessitating strict adherence to the chain of custody protocol. Accreditation of laboratory procedures, quality assessment (QA) and quality control (QC) protocols are essential parameters for the admissibility of expert opinions. Translating expert opinion into credible evidence is yet another challenge.
Training and capacity building of all stakeholders of CJS are immediate needs. It is further suggested that India must introduce a regulatory body (Ombudsman) to oversee the forensic services, similar to the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC) or the Forensic Science Regulator (FSR) of United Kingdom. There are several vital issues and challenges, that require further deliberation.