The public outcry following the rape and murder of a trainee medico at R G Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata has raised the issue of a delayed forensic examination. It is a case of perverted sexuality, torture and death caused by breakage of the thyroid cartilage due to throttling.
The media initially reported this as a gangrape due to the alleged presence of a large amount of seminal fluid collected from the corpus of the deceased during autopsy. However, more recent reports indicated that the DNA collected has established the involvement of only one accused: Sanjoy Roy, a civic volunteer. In fact, the ‘151 mg liquid’ mentioned in the post-mortem report was misinterpreted due to a lack of forensic awareness.
Undue delays in conducting forensic analysis in such cases create doubts about manipulation, depleting faith in the administration of justice. The recent Anokhilal case in Madhya Pradesh was a glaring case of forensic misconduct, leading to a man receiving the death sentence twice at two trials where the DNA report was misinterpreted as inculpatory evidence. Forensic misconduct was exposed only during the third trial and on March 19, 2024, it became the first DNA-based exoneration in India.
From July 2024, India replaced three major criminal laws and placed high reliance on forensic investigation. However, certain precautions are necessary, as forensic opinion is not gospel truth. The science behind forensics may be perfect, but the man behind forensic procedures may not be. When misconduct couples with collusion, fraud is inevitable; forensics is no exception.
Global examples can also shake the public’s faith. The Annie Dookhan forensic scandal from 2003 to 2012 at the Hinton State Laboratory Institute in the US hit the headlines when she submitted drug analysis in favour of the prosecution without actually conducting any test (known as dry-labbing). An FBI scandal was detected in 2015 in which the federal bureau’s lab provided hundreds of flawed forensic testimonies between the 1980s and 2000. In 1997, the Scottish Criminal Record Office submitted falsified inculpatory fingerprint reports in the Shirley McKie scandal. The Birmingham Six and Adam Scott cases are a few other cases of forensic fraud in the UK. There is every likelihood of hundreds of unreported cases where bad forensics have led to the miscarriage of justice.
In India, the Delhi High Court detected fabrication of the DNA report in the Khursheed case (2018) that alleged child sexual abuse; a criminal case was slapped against the DNA expert investigated by the CBI. In the Rajeev Singh case (2024), the DNA report was submitted without proper testing.
So there is a dire need to address the substantive and procedural legal regimes involved in forensic evidence since Section 176(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita requires the mandatory visit of a forensic expert to the scene of heinous crimes. There are three broad areas to be urgently addressed —legal reforms, procedural protocols, and capacity building.
The term ‘expert’ must be defined under Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). Who is an expert? As directed by the Supreme Court in the P Ponnusamy case (2022), exculpatory evidence must be shared by the prosecution with the accused like the Brady Rule (1963, US SC) in the US.
Cross-examination of material witnesses is the right of an accused under the aegis of fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Sections 328(2), 329(2) and 330(1) of the BSA jointly placed a legal embargo by shortening the fundamental right of the accused due to shortage of forensic experts.
Justice Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court, in Melendez-Diaz vs Massachusetts (2009), held that all analysts had to appear before court even if they “possessed the scientific acumen of Madam Curie and the veracity of Mother Teresa”. Anokhilal reiterated the need for cross-examination of experts and quality of legal aid, which must be supplemented with quality forensic-aid.
Chain of custody, and coding and decoding systems through RFID or blockchain may mitigate the fraud and corruption plaguing forensic reporting in India. The forensic laboratories must be accredited by a competent authority. AI, if fittingly employed, may rectify various loopholes in the realm. Periodic capacity-building of all stakeholders of the criminal justice system, including judges and the legal fraternity, is the need of the hour. Laboratories need to be augmented for timely analysis and reporting of forensic samples.
The syllabus of legal education must incorporate hands-on training on forensic technologies. An independent audit system and a well-structured ombudsman having statutory powers must be in place to act as a watchdog over the skills and ethical conduct of forensic professionals.
The Texas Forensic Science Commission and the Forensic Science Regulator in the UK may assist the customisation of the forensic science ombudsman in India. A think tank must be created to explore best practices across the globe to customise the standard operating procedures and evaluate the tone and tenor of forensic practices in India. Community forensics must be promoted for enabling the public.
Media reporting of crime needs attention, and forensic journalism may assist media professionals in incorporating forensic inputs in their crime reporting. Indeed, an emphasis on forensic investigation is a welcome step, but a lot is yet to be done to set the tone for grounding the legislative intent behind a new set of criminal laws.
(Views are personal)
G K Goswami | IPS, Fulbright-Nehru Fellow and Founding Director, UP State Institute of Forensic Science, Lucknow