DNA testing
Image source -https://bit.ly/3esDvi6

This article is written by Ishita Shailesh, pursuing BA.LLB (Hons.) and Shubham Gupta pursuing BBA.LLB (Hons.) from National Law University, Odisha.

Introduction

The Locard’s Exchange Principle states, “Transparency in evidence processing builds faith in criminal justice apparatus”. This concept was further articulated in the case of “R. v. Sussex” which stated that, “Not only Justice should be done but it must be seen to be done.” Rape cases in India go under-reported and those reported have a very poor rate of conviction because of lack of evidence. This is so because crimes like these are done in isolation eliminating the possibility of the presence of the witness. DNA being the backbone of showcasing transparency in rape cases helps in maintaining the trust of the people in Judiciary. It is the only credible evidence left in the plate of investigation authorities to show transparency and accuracy to provide justice. 

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is a kind of material found in body organs like hairs, skin colour and eyes. The major reason for using the DNA test is that it is different for every person unless the case is of identical twins. This is similar to how fingerprints help to identify the people charged with rape. It is found by trained investigators at the location where the rape is alleged to have happened or any significant place from where the DNA can be traced. The DNA is collected from Saliva, Urine, Blood, Skin Tissues, Semen and Sweat. That’s why the investigators advice the victim to avoid bathing, cleaning fingernails or urination until the sexual assault forensic examinations have been taken place. Although DNA samples can be easily collected from the apparel of the victim yet the credibility and chances of recovering evidence from the victim’s body are higher than any other evidence.

The collection of DNA evidence is not confined to the accused or the victim but can be done even of the witness, a person who may have had even consensual sexual intercourse with the accused within the 72 hours of the incident or another person. After the judgment of “K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India the “Right to Privacy” is recognised as a fundamental right. DNA discloses the personal genetic information of the person, hence before collecting the DNA the consent is required to be taken of the concerned party. Although Section(S.) 53A of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) allows taking DNA samples on the advice of police officer yet consent is needed when the medico-legal examination or biological sample of the rape survivor has to be collected.

There is a process regarding the collection, interpretation and usage of these DNA samples which will elaborately be discussed in the later parts of the article. Briefly, when the DNA is collected it is sent to the authority by which the law is enforced, the authority will then deliver it to the crime laboratory that analyses DNA samples and the unique profiles of the specific person are identified. Then the laboratory with the involvement of the enforcing authority matches it with the primary suspects. If it is unknown or doesn’t match with that of the potential suspects then it may be compared with the other DNA profiles by running it in a huge database created by the FBI called “CODIS (Combined DNA Index System).” This helps in the identification of suspected people and habitual defaulters in the country and also in those cases when the accused is not able to identify the suspects. There is a time limit for pressing charges within which the law enforcement have to arrest or locate the suspect. This time limit imposed is called a statute of limitation though it is different in every state and is also subject to how the rape is done, the age of the victim and other factors varying in each state.

Emergence of DNA Testing in Rape Cases

Before further elaborations on DNA, it is necessary to know when and why the need for DNA was raised and through which medium it was incorporated in the then criminal justice system. 

The “Malimath Committee” suggested bringing reform in the criminal justice system by highlighting the fact that there should be the use of forensic sciences in Criminal investigation of rape cases. It was further suggested to add DNA experts under the S. 293(4) of CrPC which talks about scientific experts and which was taken into account by the subsequent amendment. They further recommended having more laboratories for handling DNA samples and evidence. Additionally, they suggested for a uniform statute regarding DNA Testing, its collection, its admissibility and for protecting it to be misused. It also recommended amending S. 313 of the CrPC so that against the accused an adverse inference can be drawn if he is not able to answer any relevant material question against himself. 

Moreover, the committee recommended having a special enactment which would provide the police with the specific guidelines and set standards for gaining genetic information of the concerned parties. This would create adequate safeguards to prevent any misuse of the DNA. A national database of DNA can be created which would be of great help in our fight against terrorism. 

9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) also states that “Facts necessary to explain or introduce a fact in issue or a relevant fact”. Further, if the IEA is observed it is stated in S. 45 that the evidence of an expert is relevant and is extended in S. 51 that it is also relevant on which ground the opinion is based upon. S. 46 deals with the facts about the experts’ opinion. Hence, here based on the above-mentioned sections, an analogy can be created which infers the relevance of DNA Profiling

However, the question of the legitimacy of DNA analysis still pertains, to which reference to S. 53A of the code should be given. The section clearly states that in cases of rape, a medical practitioner can examine the accused and the substances from the body of the accused of DNA fingerprinting.

I. Cases

The first time DNA finger-printing was used by the British in the year 1986 when a person named Colin Pitchfork was charged with rape and murder and he was convicted using these examinations. 

In “Thograni v. State of Orissa the importance of DNA was mentioned “The use of DNA as evidence in criminal investigations has grown in recent years in India. DNA testing has helped law enforcement, identify criminals and solve severe criminal cases. On the other hand, DNA evidence has proven that many convicted people are actually innocent.” “Geeta Saha Vs. NCT of Delhi [1999] 1 JCC 101 is one of the initial cases where the High Court has ordered, “DNA test on a foetus of a rape victim.” 

Subsequently, some famous rape cases in which DNA testing was used were:

In the landmark judgement of “Kamalanantha v. State of Tamil Nadu,” Swami Premanand, a renowned swami had many female disciples. One of them charged him of rape and she also became pregnant. DNA testing was ordered for identification of paternity of the father. Blood samples of the swami, disciple and baby were collected and analyzed which led to the conviction of swami.

On 15th November 2002, rape was done of a student who was in the fourth year of Mulana Azad College by three persons. After the arrest of the suspects, a blood sample of one of the suspects was sent for a DNA test. The result matched with that of vaginal semen and hence the main accused was arrested with the help of the DNA. When the samples were taken from the clothes of the victim the semen was absent in the clothes. Just because the semen was not found on the clothes did not conclude that there was no rape. Here, as the DNA got matched with that of the accused then it could be concluded that sexual assault had taken place.

II. Provisions

Earlier, there were no specific provisions provided in the Criminal Code of Procedure and Indian Evidence act regarding science, forensics and DNA. The investigation authority had to face problems when they used to collect evidence through scientific techniques or under modern forums. In S. 53 of the CrPC, it was that assistance of a medical practitioner can be taken by the police officer for healthy investigation. No provision talked about that blood, semen etc can be collected for the criminal investigation against the accused. It was the Amendment of CrPC, 2005 which introduced DNA profiling in the code and authorised with the help of a medical practitioner, the collection of DNA from the body of the accused and the victims for investigation. Merely allowing the collection of DNA evidence does not solve the purpose as there is still doubt regarding its admissibility.

DNA has been majorly used for finding the parentage of the child in both the civil and criminal cases.  It is used for the presumption provision under S. 112 of IEA which states that a child’s legitimacy is proved if it is born during the marriage. The fact that the child was born within “two hundred and eighty days after the dissolution of marriage, the mother remaining unmarried, shall be conclusive proof that he is the legitimate child of that man.” Unless it can be shown that “the parties to the marriage had no access to each other at any time when he could have been begotten.”  Earlier there was no provision for checking the legitimacy and parentage of the child medically and was solely based on the presumption proving incompetence of the law.

https://lawsikho.com/course/certificate-criminal-litigation-trial-advocacy
                Click Above

Admissibility of DNA Tests in Rape Cases

The admissibility of DNA evidence has always been a very controversial issue as there are subtle discretionary powers with the court regarding its admissibility. It is the court which decides whether the DNA evidence is accurate and proper. The discretionary power in the court is because there is no specific regulation or guidelines regarding admissibility of DNA as evidence. It is based on the question whether the method of collection and testing is proper or not if the court is satisfied then only it is admissible. Moreover, in the case of”Patangi Balram Venkata Ganesh V. State of AP,” it was held that DNA helps in the proper identification of an individual and hence it can be concluded that it is admissible. The existing statutes like IEA and CrPC mention nothing about the management of science, technology and forensic issues. Due to the lack of statutes, the investigation officer had to face a lot of problems in proving the accused person guilty. 

I. With Reference to Indian Constitution

The DNA technology in the opinion of the court contradicts with the provisions of the Constitution like “Right to Privacy”, “Right against Self Incrimination”. This becomes one of the major reasons behind the stringency and reluctance of the court towards acceptance of the DNA technology. The “right to privacy” now is a part of “Right to Life and Personal Liberty” under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Similarly, Article 20(3) provides that nobody should be compelled to give evidence against himself. In many cases such as the case of “Govind Singh V. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Supreme Court held that the fundamental rights must be subject to certain restrictions if those restrictions are for public interest and hence they are not absolute

Based on the same and many other cases, the Supreme Court has allowed medical examination and DNA technology.  Still, this does not fulfil the need for strict and uniform regulations and guidelines for DNA so to have proper and effective use of these modern technologies. Regarding Article 20(3), the Supreme Court in the case of “State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, answered the similar question concerning the constitutionality of DNA Testing. It was concluded that “to be a witness” concerning oral evidence means “imparting knowledge in respect of relevant facts by a person who has personal knowledge of a fact to be communicated to a Court.”

It further gave reference to S. 139 of the IEA, “a person summoned to produce a document does not become a witness by the mere fact that he produced it and cannot be cross-examined unless and until he was called as a witness.” This is to state that there is a distinction provided in the section between a witness and a person producing documents. A person is known to be a witness when he or she provides a fact which is derived from the knowledge by oral statement. Providing “thumb impressions or impressions of foot or palm or fingers or specimen or showing parts of the body by way of identification is not included in the expression to be a witness”. Hence, giving DNA evidence does not come under the definition of witness and so cannot be held unconstitutional under Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution

II. With Reference to Code of Criminal Procedure

The only section which authorizes the police and the investigating authorities to get the help of the medical expert for their investigation is S. 53 of the CrPC but these sections do not provide for the collection of blood, semen, saliva etc. Eventually, the CrPC Amendment Act, 2005 has introduced changes in Section 53 and inserted Section 53A which authorises the collection of DNA samples from the body of the victim in rape cases by the investigating officer. But the doubt regarding the admission of the findings of these DNA tests persists, as there are a lot of conflicts and doubts created in various judgments of the Supreme Court and High courts. The common consensus among all the judgments of all the courts is that they do not deny the conclusiveness and accuracy of these tests. But they surely doubt their admissibility on grounds of some statutory and constitutional prohibitions and even sometimes on public policy as well.

In the rape case of “Krishna Kumar Malik V. State of Harayana” the Supreme Court has observed that – “Now, after the incorporation of S. 53A in the CrPC, w.e.f. 23.06.2006, it has become necessary for the prosecution to go in for a DNA test in such type of cases, facilitating the prosecution to prove its case against the accused. Before 2006, even without the aforesaid specific provision, the prosecution could have still resorted to this procedure of getting the DNA test or analysis and matching of semen of the prosecutor to make it a foolproof case.” 

It can be concluded that the purpose of adding explanations to S. 53, 53(A) and 54 of the CrPC in 2005 extend the scope of these sections to medical examination of the accused and the victim, particularly regarding DNA testing.

III. With Reference to Indian Evidence Act

There is no mention of DNA testing or any kind of these modern technologies in the Indian Evidence Act. Moreover, it neither talks about its admissibility nor its evidential value in the cases of rape. The Evidence Act only has a section which mentions conjecture of the child’s legitimacy and father’s parentage in case of marriage or 280 days of marriage. As this section is irrefutable, the issue was raised whether the child born in the marriage will be under the parentage of the husband even if the DNA test shows that the husband is not the father of that child. 

The issue was answered by the Supreme Court in the case of ”Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Anr. The case elaborated that we should keep in mind that when S. 112 of the evidence act was enforced these modern advancements had no role and therefore DNA testing was not a part of it. The DNA tests state accuracy. The “presumption of conclusive proof” raised in S. 112 can be rebuttable. According to the court, no one needs this presumption. If there is evidence which provides contrary results then, the presumption is rebutted. “Interest of justice is best served by ascertaining the truth and the court should be furnished with the best available science and may not be left to bank upon presumptions unless science has no answer to the facts in issue.” The author opines that if there is a conflict between scientific evidence universally accepted to be right and conclusive proof envisaged under the law then the former should prevail over the later.

In this case, the Supreme Court doesn’t change the presumption of the legitimacy of the child and also didn’t remove the burden of the husband to prove that the child is not his. The only remedy given by the court is to prove his non-access to his wife when the child could have been begotten. Here the court has given priority to DNA tests using S. 45 of the IEA over the presumption of legitimacy under S. 112 of IEA. The Supreme Court concluded on these lines by following the fundamental duties (Part IV A of the Indian Constitution ) under Article 51A (h) and (j)

IV. Admissibility of DNA as Evidence in Foreign Country

America 

There are two tests pertaining to the admissibility of DNA test in cases of rape in the USA. The so-called Frye test derived from ”Frye v. United States,” which states that the test will be admissible in the court of law if it has general acceptance among the masses. Second is the rule of relevancy derived from the case of “Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,” which held that the theory or the technique should be used and tested or be subjected to peer review and publication. At the same time, in using a specific scientific technique, the potential rate of error should also be known and the theory should be generally accepted. So in general, the USA is very open and acceptable about DNA tests in cases of rape.

England

England is the country known for its most effective and efficient usage of DNA Technology. England established a National DNA Database in 1995. It has always been known for discovering pioneering ways of using DNA for protecting the innocent, identifying the suspects and convicting the guilty. It is considered a world leader for using DNA efficiently and reasonably.

Canada 

Canada has broadened the range of Expert testimony itself and so doesn’t have any separate provisions regarding the admissibility of DNA tests in rape cases. It just encourages four criteria which are used in expert opinion to apply in DNA tests. In the case of “R. v. Mohan,” it was held that “the four criteria are necessary for assisting the trier of fact; the absence of any exclusionary rule and properly qualified expert.”

Australia 

Australian courts are reluctant in accepting the DNA test as evidence in the case of rape. There have been prominently many rape cases where the Supreme Court refused to admit the results of DNA tests in the court of law. In one of the prominent cases “R.v. Tran” the crown allowed to sought arguments through DNA to find out whether the accused has done the rape or not. Bloodstain and vaginal swabs were taken from the deceased and bloodstains were taken from the accused and then sent for examination in the Cellmark laboratories. Here Justice McInerney rules “DNA typing results provided by Cellmark, were inadmissible, owing to doubts about the existence of certain bands in the profile which Cellmark said matched the accused”. This proves that Australia has still not accepted DNA Tests as a reliable option for examination in the case of rape and is so in the state of doubt and is reluctant to accept it.

Evidential Value of DNA Test in Rape Cases

As observed in the previous chapters that DNA Tests come under the purview of experts’ opinion and not in itself has any individual recognition. It is a rule which is followed from earlier times that any subject which requires competence or special knowledge will be admissible in the court of law. In these cases, the special knowledge has to be provided by the witness who has acquired the particular knowledge or competence by any study, practice or experience. These kinds of witnesses in the legal terminology are known as “experts”. Their opinions are justified to be proper evidence. The reason for such imposition is the lack of expertise of the courts in medical sciences; hence if not provided with the expert information, the court will be unaided and will be unable to draw an inference to reach a particular conclusion.

Such opinion is based on superior knowledge, skills and experience in the rape cases. A biologist can be considered as a perfect expert in the cases of rape as he is aware of the internal and external scars of the human body. Moreover, he would appreciate the difference of fluids like semen, saliva or anything else from the body of the perpetrator. This does not only help in differentiating the facts but also to identify facts which may be obfuscated or unseen on the face of discovery. In the case of “State of H.P. v. Jai Lal,” the Supreme Court opined that “the expert evidence is the one who made the subject upon which he speaks a matter of particular study, practice, or observation and he must have special knowledge of the subject.” 

To show the expert evidence as to the evidence of a witness, it has to be shown that the expert has done a special study on that subject or has special knowledge or has acquired specific experience therein. If it is not done by an expert then it is not admissible. However, the opinion of an expert is advisory. It is not a witness of fact. 

The expert must provide the judge with the criteria that are scientific for getting an accurate conclusion so that the judge comes up with his judgement by the application and usage of the same criteria. An expert opinion is a kind of witness and so their statements are not facts and can be cross-examined and contradicted like any other evidence. Hence DNA Tests are subject to cross-examinations and contradictions. They can be challenged in the court of law by the accused or even the victim though they are scientific results. On the other hand, it has a weightage over some other evidence because of its peculiar ability to assist the court. There will also be reasons for rejecting the DNA tests on procedural grounds and occasions where there might be two different results of the test in the same people. For example, according to one test, the semen was of the accused found near the vagina of the victim and according to another test the semen found was of the Husband of the women near the vagina. 

The DNA tests used are not to answer the ultimate question but to answer or articulate a particular fact to smoothen the investigation. Although DNA Tests on the face of it appear to be conclusive yet they do not answer the whole question and only part of it. DNA Tests might answer the fact that rape occurred or not and might also help in the identification of the perpetrator but is not the sole decider based on which the judgment can be announced. 

It leads us to conclude that the importance of DNA is to check whether the event happened or not. It is an extension and assistance to other examinations and collection of evidence. The court solely based on it cannot conclude that the offence was committed by a particular person. Hence, the DNA evidence admitted in the rape cases will be relied to the extent of its corroboration on with the other evidence in front of the court. This would help the court to reach a particular conclusion of acquittal or conviction of the accused. In the end, it can be observed that DNA tests are an important piece of corroborative evidence and not conclusive proof. It needs other shreds of evidence along with it and cannot allow the judge to give judgment solely based on it.

Importance of DNA Testing in Rape Cases

During the commission of rape, there are high chances of exchange of blood, semen, saliva and hair between the victim and the accused. These may also be found in the location or the articles in the place of occurrence. Wood’s lamp and Polilight are the methods which help to detect stains of biological content. In this scenario, photography and video become essential to preserve the evidence in that location. 

The forensic importance of semen, blood and saliva has been discussed below: 

SEMEN – Male perpetrator when having sexual intercourse with a woman there is high chances of transfer of semen which works as a potent forensic marker. In the book authored by Carole Jenny titled Child Abuse and Neglect, it mentioned “Semen is highly fluorescent under UV light and Wood’s lamp helps to detect semen stains. Indeed semen contains spermatozoa suspended in the seminal fluid. The chance of getting spermatozoa in oral, anorectal and vaginal cavities diminishes after 6, 24 and 72 hours respectively after sexual contact.” The help of clothes is also taken as there is a possibility of stains of semen or other body fluids of the perpetrator on them. Clothes do not have such a limited period of analysis and may be detected even after one year. There might be a case where the perpetrator may be vasectomised or azoospermic. Therefore, the analysis of semen has to be done under strict checking, through an optical microscope as chances of deceptive results are high. It may show the absence of sperms because of the above-mentioned conditions so the technique of Prostate- Specific Antigen (PAS) is used so that the perpetrator does not get free because of being azoospermic or vasectomised.

BLOOD – Serum antigen and ABO group analysis are the methods which help in the identification of the human. Blood is one of the essential parts of DNA and so bloodstains on the body and clothes of the perpetrator or the victim play a major role. Analysis of the articles can also turn out to be significant because there are high chances of bloodstains in the articles where the crime occurred. Blood or tissues of the aborted foetus and the pregnant women may also turn out to be a significant source of DNA Match. 

SALIVA – Since there is a high chance of perpetrator kissing, sucking or biting the victim and which leads to oral fluid on the body of the perpetrator. If the kiss is intense the chances of recovering the traces of oral fluid is up to one hour. But in this case, the investigating officer has to make sure that the victim does not wash his or her face or any body part where chances of traces of oral fluid might recover like breasts, abdomen, neck, throat etc. To trace saliva, not only the body of the victim but also nearby cigarette butts, cans, bottles, glass and even the clothes of the victim be analyzed. There is the presence of epithelial cells in saliva which helps in DNA analysis, therefore, help to identify the identity of the perpetrator.

Conclusion

“Modern Problems Demands Modern solutions”

In this article, it has been observed that DNA is one of the important tools to identify whether the accused has or has not committed a particular crime. This significance and reliability of DNA are because of its unique character. In cases of rape, the DNA can be traced from the saliva, semen and blood of the accused found on the clothes, body of the victim and also from the articles in the place of crime. The investigating authority has to take utmost care that these extracts are traced and sent to the examination laboratories within the prescribed time provided for each extract so as to achieve proper results. The DNA testing though has not emerged in our country yet it has been now in consideration after the recommendations of the Malimath Committee and the Criminal Amendment Act of 2005. The Supreme Court has also been stating wide interpretations in certain cases for DNA testing and has been trying to bring it under the purview of expert opinion. This is so because there is no prescribed statute, particularly for this purpose.

The judiciary hence has suggested extending the Scope of § 112 of the IEA.  The absence of special statute for DNA testing provides discretionary powers to the court for its admissibility. The court had been subjective regarding its admissibility on constitutional grounds of Right to Privacy & Self Incrimination and also on its implicit interpretations under CRPC and Indian Evidence Act. DNA testing being under the purview of Expert opinion is corroborative evidence as it does not the answer regarding the conviction and acquittal. Moreover, at the same time, it answers a particular question for further investigation and is subject to cross-examination and contradictions. The author at the end wants to conclude the article by underlining the need for reconsidering these kinds of evidence and their admissibility. In the present scenario where the crime is done through various new techniques and methods, the measure of identification should also be of the match. It should be changed according to the requirements and should not be discretionary but should as per prescribed guidelines and rules.

Annotated Bibliography

BOOKS

“Child Abuse and Neglect E-Book: Diagnosis, Treatment and Evidence”- It provides an exhaustive insight into the fundamentals of the stains, semen’s and cavities and its usage in collecting rape evidence. The researcher has referred to the part of the book which deals with significance, existence and validity of such body fluids on the body of the victims. 

ARTICLES

  • “Wood’s Lamp Utility in the Identification of Semen” – The article deals with the process of tracing semen from wood lamp method. Here the researcher has referred to this article to justify the method cited in the article for a collection of evidence through wood lamp method. 
  • “The Use of Polilight® in the Detection of Seminal Fluid, Saliva and Bloodstains and Comparison with Conventional Chemical-based Screening Tests” – The article deals with the tracing of semen from polilight method. Here the researcher has referred to this article to justify the method cited in the article for a collection of evidence through the polilight method. 
  • “New Saliva DNA Collection Method Compared to Buccal Cell Collection Techniques for Epidemiological Studies” – The article deals with the extraction of information of DNA from Saliva. It has been used by the researcher to inform that saliva can be the source of checking the DNA of the perpetrator. 
  • “Establishing Identity using Cheiloscopy and Palatoscopy” – The article deals with the extraction of information of DNA from Blood it has been used by the researcher to inform that blood can be the source of checking the DNA of the perpetrator. 
  • Assessment of Human Sperm Function after Recovery from the Female Reproductive Tract – The article deals with the extraction of information of DNA from sperm. It has been used by the researcher to inform that sperm can be the source of checking the DNA of the perpetrator. 

CASES

  • “R. v Sussex Justices” – This case is significant concerning the paper as it deals the principle of not only doing but showcasing the justice which is done when DNA tests are used in rape case as it shows a clear prove of conviction and acquittal of the accused or any other person. 
  • “K.S. Puttaswamy v Union of India” – This case held that privacy is an integral part of Fundamental Right of every citizen of the Country. Here in the paper, it is relevant because before collecting any kind of body extract of the victim, accused or any third person consent should be taken so to protect the privacy of the person.
  • “Pantangi Balarama Venkata Ganesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh” – Here in this judgment, the admissibility of DNA as a piece of evidence in a rape case was questioned to which it was held that in general it is admissible in the court of law but subject to certain questions leading to the discretion of the court. 
  • “Govind Singh v. State of MP” – This case has been mentioned by the Researcher to support the DNA testing with constitutional lenses as DNA testing on the face is violative of the Right to Privacy under Right to Life and Personal Liberty but in this case, it was highlighted that these rights are subject to restrictions under public interest. 
  • “State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad” – In this case, it was held that giving body extraction does not attract self-incrimination, as self-incrimination was highlighted concerning section 139 of the Indian Evidence Act and it was concluded that incrimination is done when knowledge is revealed through oral testimony and physical extractions of the body does not amount to self-incrimination.
  • “Krishna Kumar Malik V. State of Harayana” – In this case, it was held that after incorporation of section 53(A) the investigation authority must collect DNA in rape cases. 
  • “Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik & Anr” – This case has been mentioned by the researcher to show how the courts have started to take a very broad approach concerning scientific techniques by the Supreme Court. 
  • “H.P. v. Jai Lal” – In this case, it was held that though there is no explicit mentioning of DNA Tests in the statute it can be included in the expert opinion chapter of the Indian Evidence Act.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here