FORENSIC SCIENCE as a TOOL in

COURTROOMS
(In particular the following Neuroscientific tests – BEAP test, Narco Analysis and Polygraph)

INTRODUCTION
• Forensic Science – Application of whole range of science for the
purposes of law
• Example – Ballistics, Odontology, Cyber Forensic, Psychology, DNA, DISTINGUISHING FEATURES
Fingerprint Analysis, Polygraph, Narco Analysis,etc
• Various uses – lie detection, identification, aid in investigation, and • Capable of answering all vital issues related to a crime i.e.
determine mental state and capacity for rational thought - DNA Naina Whether? how? when? who?
Sahni Murder case (Tandoor case) – 1995, Fingerprints – Argentine • Helps in providing a lead in investigation, a missing link,
footballer, Emiliano Sala ascertaining the truth etc
• Crime is dynamic – Traditional methods are outdated • Helpful in determining the mental state – degree of culpability
• Reluctance seen among witnesses to come to court - Oral evidence • Both Civil and Criminal cases
depends on several facts, like power of observation, humiliation, external • Can not be tampered
influence, forgetfulness etc., whereas forensic evidence is free from • Softer alternative to third degree methods
those infirmities. • Ability to both exonerate the wrongly accused and identify the
• Applicable at all stages – pre-trial, trial and post-trial guilty
• Objective in nature
• Helps in speedy dispensing of justice
THREE CENTRAL ISSUES • Physically non-invasive

• Explicitly provided in IEA – Section 6-55 (exhaustive)– preliminary matter

• Evidentiary fact or Factum probans - connected to fact-in-issue FE appreciated

RELEVANT • Not all logically relevant facts but legally relevant – except section 11 FE not appreciated
• All that is relevant may not be Admissible – not co-extensive
0 50 100
• Evidence Act is inclusionary in nature - Presumption of admissibility - Absence of exclusionary rule
• Effective investigation v. individual liberties (accused, suspects and witnesses) – public policy
consideration – fairness – speedy decisions
• Example - Physical and testimonial divide - Mental privacy- Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) Study of Rate of Conviction in
ADMISSIBLE • Two competing models – Crime control and due process - They refer to priorities—tendencies, an criminal cases – Supreme
orientation, from which a decision maker canvasses the domain of constitutional criminal procedure, Court and Gujarat High Court –
and determines where the emphasis should lie in balancing individual liberty and social control- not 1951 - 2015
mutually exclusive models
• Credibility - Issue of Junk Science – Expert shall be qualified – peritus (R v. Silverlock)
• Degree of reliability - Section 45 IEA – Secondary evidence
• The National Draft policy on Criminal Justice Reform has suggested that Indian
Evidence Act needs to be amended to make scientific evidence admissible as
RELIABLE ‘substantive evidence’ rather than ‘opinion evidence’ and establish its probative value
depending on the sophistication of the concerned scientific discipline
• Probatvie v. Prejudicial effect
USA- is to evaluate The study is 1.What are the main human
METHODOLOGY

RESEARCHQUESTION
OBJECTIVE

Daubert whether mainly doctrinal rights of a person which are

criteria, assimilation of and analytical in affected when he is
Frye case Neuroscientific nature which is involuntarily subjected to
702 Federal Tests in criminal based on primary Neuroscientific Tests?
rule of justice system in and secondary 2. Whether involuntary
Evidecne India would affect sources of legal administration of
Japan the human rights data. The primary Neuroscientific Tests violate
of the accused sources are the right against self-
Leading UK especially right Constitution,
country - International Helpfulness against self- legislation, rules,
incrimination and whether
Discretion results derived from these
Practices test, incrimination and case laws from tests amount to “testimonial
of the trial right to mental India, USA, UK
judge Methods of Lundy v. R compulsion?”
privacy and also to and other common
investigation are analyse the extent law countries like 3. What constitutes mental
witnessing colossal which the issue of Canada, Australia privacy and how far it is
Australia admissibility and New Zealand, affected by involuntary
changes with
Canada S. 79 - standards is International administration of the
progress in science Neuroscientific tests?
R v. Evidence Act, addressed by the Courts and
Mohan, 1995, present law in international 4. What are the legal
Trial judge Strict India. instruments. The standards of admissibility
as gate interpretation secondary ensuring fair trial adopted
keepers n criteria for sources are by common law countries in
expertise books, journal interpreting Neuroscientific
articles, Evidence in court room?
conference
articles, web
Suggestions – articles, Limitations/challenges
• Veritism i.e. verdict accuracy over procedure, as an appropriate goal magazines
• Partisanship and
– mouthpieces for a party’s view point
• Means to combat bias – clarifying the role of Scientists, blind testing, newspaper
– motivational bias, cognitive bias
standardisation etc reports.
• Constant disagreement among experts
• External accreditation – these auditing systems examine the calibration of • human intervention/error – crime scene preserved
equipment, staff training, internal quality assurance mechanism • manipulation of the test – accidental mix-up –
• Cross-examination of the expert – extensive and critical examination mislabelling of samples
• Registration program for expert witnesses – departure from party driven system • Resource imbalance between the prosecution and
of expert the defence
• Active participation of the judges – both as gatekeeper and at appointment of • Adversarial system – Deleterious effect
expert
• Expansion of provision in Section 45 of the IEA to accommodate the opinion of Kanika Aggarwal
experts in all fields. PhD Candidate
“The relation between law and science and lawyers and scientists has been described as both an essential reliance and a Jindal Global Law School
• Proper legislation – safeguards – addressing the issues involved highly needed O.P. Jindal Global University