Examining The Challenges Undermining The Evidentiary Value Of DNA Evidence In Indian Criminal Trials
Ms. Mahima Makkar and Dr. Mona Goel
ABSTRACT
In Indian criminal jurisprudence, DNA profiling occupies a paradoxical position. It is viewed by the court and the public as the closest approximation of scientific certainty that is accessible to any fact-finder; it is merely one type of opinion evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), whose weight depends on the integrity of the process that produced it. This article looks at that tension. The popularly held belief regarding the probative strength of DNA evidence in India, the paper contends, is often disengaged from the institutional conditions required to sustain it. The failure of trained first responders, non-standardised collection protocols, and the chronic backlog and uneven accreditation of forensic laboratories impaired such probative strength. Similarly, the judicial unfamiliarity with the statistical logic of random match probability does too. With the help of the statutory scheme of medical examination and expert opinion, constitutional constraints under Article 20(3), and the doctrinal development going from Kathi Kalu Oghad through Selvi v. State of Karnataka to the Supreme Court’s 2025 intervention in Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu, the area traces a judicial shift from near-blanket deference to a more sceptical, corroboration- requiring positioning. It maps three interlocking systemic hurdles: chain-of- custody failures, institutional capacity deficits, and poorly trained human intermediaries and situates India’s regulatory vacuum against comparative frameworks such as the UK’s Forensic Science Regulator Act 2021.
Keywords: DNA evidence, forensic science, Indian Evidence Act, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, chain of custody, random match probability, criminal procedure
