Mandatory Forensic Evidence In Heinous Crimes
What are Heinous Crimes?
Heinous crimes generally refer to offenses that are particularly grave or atrocious in nature, attracting stringent punishment. These include:
Murder (Section 302 IPC)
Rape (Section 376 IPC)
Kidnapping (Section kidnapping-related sections)
Terrorism-related offences
Kidnapping for ransom
Other violent crimes affecting public safety and order
Role of Forensic Evidence
Forensic evidence refers to scientific evidence collected from crime scenes or victims, including:
DNA analysis
Fingerprints
Ballistics
Blood spatter analysis
Toxicology reports
Medical examination reports
It provides objective, scientific proof which strengthens the prosecution’s case and reduces wrongful convictions.
Why Mandatory Forensic Evidence?
Objective Truth: Forensic evidence provides unbiased scientific data.
Corroboration: Supports or disproves testimonies of witnesses.
Prevention of Wrongful Convictions: Reliance on forensic evidence reduces mistakes due to false confessions or eyewitness error.
Speedy Justice: Helps in quicker resolution of cases.
Judicial Demand: Courts increasingly require forensic evidence in heinous crimes.
Legal Framework & Guidelines
Section 53, CrPC mandates medical examination of rape victims.
DNA Profiling Bill (now law in many countries) mandates DNA testing for serious crimes.
Supreme Court Directions: Courts have issued guidelines for mandatory forensic investigation in heinous crime cases.
Important Case Laws on Mandatory Forensic Evidence
1. State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1995) 3 SCC 214
Facts: The accused was charged with murder. The trial court convicted him relying on circumstantial evidence but no forensic evidence was produced.
Issue: Whether conviction without forensic evidence is sustainable in heinous crimes.
Holding: Supreme Court held that forensic evidence is not mandatory but highly desirable in murder cases to corroborate other evidence.
Principle: Courts may convict without forensic evidence if circumstantial evidence is strong, but absence weakens the prosecution’s case.
Impact: Established that forensic evidence strengthens the prosecution but is not an absolute requirement.
2. Poonam v. State of Haryana (2019) 13 SCC 181
Facts: A rape case where DNA test was not conducted on victim or accused.
Issue: Whether failure to conduct DNA test would vitiate prosecution.
Holding: Supreme Court held that DNA evidence is crucial in rape cases, and failure to conduct it is a serious lapse.
Direction: Trial courts must ensure forensic tests, especially DNA, are done in sexual assault cases.
Impact: Emphasized the mandatory nature of forensic evidence in sexual offence cases.
3. Tukaram S. Dighole v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 4 SCC 329
Facts: The accused was charged with murder. Postmortem and forensic reports were available.
Issue: Role of forensic evidence in corroborating medical evidence.
Holding: The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of medical and forensic evidence in establishing cause of death.
Principle: Forensic reports should be considered as crucial corroborative evidence.
Impact: Strengthened the role of forensic evidence in murder trials.
4. Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration (1978) 4 SCC 494
Facts: Case related to custodial death.
Holding: The Court held that forensic evidence like post-mortem reports are essential to investigate custodial deaths.
Significance: Forensic evidence is indispensable in investigating state-sponsored or heinous crimes.
Principle: Such evidence protects against miscarriage of justice.
5. Arun Kumar v. State of Haryana (2018) 3 SCC 460
Facts: The accused was convicted in a sexual assault case without forensic evidence.
Issue: Whether lack of forensic evidence undermines the prosecution’s case.
Holding: Court held that absence of forensic evidence weakens the prosecution and must be viewed cautiously.
Direction: Courts must direct police to collect forensic evidence diligently.
Impact: Emphasized mandatory forensic evidence in rape and sexual offences.
6. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala (2019) SCC Online SC 1636
Facts: Rape and murder case with incomplete forensic investigation.
Holding: Supreme Court criticized the police for lax forensic investigation.
Direction: Police and forensic agencies must ensure timely, scientific evidence collection in heinous crimes.
Principle: Forensic evidence is a key to upholding fair trial rights.
7. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rajesh Gautam (2003) 5 SCC 35
Facts: Murder trial with forensic and medical reports.
Holding: The Supreme Court noted forensic evidence’s importance in corroborating eyewitness accounts and strengthening prosecution.
Principle: Forensic science and medicine are integral parts of the criminal justice system.
Impact: Directed courts to consider forensic evidence carefully in heinous crime trials.
Summary of Judicial Principles on Forensic Evidence in Heinous Crimes
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Not absolutely mandatory | Forensic evidence is not a strict legal prerequisite but highly desirable to strengthen cases. |
| Strong corroborative value | Provides objective proof supporting oral and circumstantial evidence. |
| Mandatory in sexual offences | DNA and medical forensic evidence must be collected and presented in sexual assault cases. |
| Police responsibility | Investigating agencies must diligently collect forensic evidence in heinous crime cases. |
| Judicial guidelines | Courts direct forensic examination as part of fair trial rights and to avoid wrongful convictions. |
Conclusion
The judiciary has consistently held forensic evidence to be of paramount importance in trials of heinous crimes. While convictions can be based on other evidence, forensic science provides scientific certainty and protects the rights of both victims and accused. Courts have emphasized the mandatory collection and proper analysis of forensic evidence, especially in cases like rape and murder, to ensure justice is done.
RELATED Blog
0 comments