Suhas Narhari Toradmal, Assistant Professor, New Law College, Ahmedngar, Maharashtra
Indian Supreme Court cases establishing new criteria’s for admissibility of scientific evidence and making trial judges the "gatekeeper" for such evidence. Similarly certain new pretrial issues posed by forensic science are discussed by the researcher.
In Court Proceeding admissibility issues regarding various types of common forensic evidence, including social science evidence, DNA, fingerprints, handwriting comparison, hair analysis, bite mark analysis, tool mark, firearm and bullet lead comparison,explosion, fire, arson evidence bloodstain pattern evidence. Each area is examined for its scientific basis and questions about its admissibility under Daubert, case especially in light of the recent National Research Council Report questioning the validity of much non-DNA science in criminal cases and for the reactions of judges to their Daubert case gatekeeping responsibilities in each area.
Nowadays increasing demand of jurors for stronger evidence of guilt is related directly to cultural changes resulting in increased awareness of the power of modern technology in the criminal justice system, especially regarding the use of DNA. Several factors have created significant doubts about whether such evidence should be used, including Daubert case, the emergence of DNA as a model for scientific evidence,
The study suggests that the result of systemic judicial pro-prosecution bias and that reform emanating from trial or appellate judges. The dogged resistance of judges to exclude government expert testimony. When presented with evidence of the questionable validity of non-DNA science, It may well refuse to convict as well as that such acquittals may be the only way to convince prosecutors to stop using such unreliable evidence.
Keywords: Daubert Case, DNA fingerprints, handwriting comparison, hair analysis, bitemark analysis, toolmark.