Impact of Forensic Technology on Justice Delivery System in India: Issues Relating to DNA Fingerprinting
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48165/Keywords:
Justice delivery system, Forensic Technology, DNA Evidence, DNA fingerprinting, Criminal InvestigationAbstract
Science and technology have made a huge invasion in our lives. Since the beginning of this world, the intelligence of human beings has resulted in the growth of science and technology according to the interests and needs of humankind. The modern inventions of science and technology shall have serious impact on the law and the justice delivery system of any country. The evolution of science and technology has enabled law enforcement agencies to solve many apparently ‘cold crimes’, which have made people to associate forensic science with detection of crimes. The basic function of forensic technology is to assist in the administration of justice. DNA technology could be the greatest single advancement in the search of truth, conviction of the guilty and acquittal of the innocent since the advent of cross-examination. This technology has revolutionised the modes of investigation of violent crimes as a result of its precision in matching physical and biological evidence from a crime scene to either convict a perpetrator or vindicate a convicted offender. In essence, DNA evidence is rapidly becoming irrefutable proof of identification. The pace of using DNA technology in the worldwide justice delivery system is increasing. Despite the increase in the use of DNA technology, there is no legislation providing for general administration of the application of DNA technology in India. Although the Indian justice system has realised the importance of the DNA technology in safeguarding the sentinels of justice since its inception, it is serving as a helping hand to the justice system of the country. The law of the country is bound to change due to the revolutionary scientific changes. Hence, an effort must be made to better administer the application of the DNA fingerprinting, so that criminals can be convicted easily and more reliably.
Downloads
References
1. (1993) 3 SCC 418
2. (2003) 4 SCC 493 at 524
3. (2004) 8 SCC 660
4. 1976 Cr LJ 1680
5. 1977 Cr LJ 1797
6. 2003 (103) Delhi LT 165
7. 2005 (2) DMC 286
8. 2005 AIR 3490
9. Accessed on 15 September 2012, www.forensic-evidence.com/ site
10. Accessed on 15 September 2012,www.libcd.law.wisc.edu
11. Accessed on 15 September 2012,www.thailawforum.com/ articlesAccessed on 05 September 2012: http://www.ornl.gov/ hgmis/elsi/forensics.shtml
12. Accessed on 10 September 2012: http:// www.articledashboard.com
13. Accessed on 15 September 2010: http://www.justnet.org/.pdf.
14. Accessed on 15 September 2012: http://www.dnaindia.com › India.
15. Accessed on 25 September 2012: http://netindian.in/news/2011/ 02/25/00011267/hc-denies-reprieve-n-d-tiwari-paternity-suit case.
16. AIR 1961 SC 1808.
17. Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh 2003 (10) SCC 228.
18. Anshu Jain, ‘DNA Technology and its Impact on Law’, NALSAR Law Rev. 2006; 3: 41-48 at p. 46.
19. Criminal Procedure Code: Section 293. Report of certain Government Scientific Experts
20. Banarsi Dass v. Teeku Dutta (Mrs.) 2005(4 )SCC449
21. Dharam Deo Yadav vs State Of Uttar Pradesh ,on. Accessed on 25 April 2012: http:// www.indiankanoon.org/doc/
22. In State vs. Sushil Sharma, 2007 CriLJ 4008. 23. Kali Ram v. State of Maharashtra, 1989 Cr.L.J. 1625 (Bom)
24. Kamalanantha vs State Of Tamil Nadu, (2005) 5 Supreme Court Cases 194.
25. Madan Gopal Kakkad vs. Naval Dubey 3 SSC 204 (1992). 26. MANU/SC/1306/2009
27. Martin, Peter D; Rittner, Christian; Schnieder, Peter M. “Proceedings of the European Symposium: Ethical and Legal Issues of DNA Typing in Forensic Medicine”, 1997; Vol. 88, No.(1): (1997) at15.
28. Pillay VV. Textbook of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, 14th Edition., at 89 (2004: p-89), Paras Medical Publishers, Hyderabad.
29. R.R. Gopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR1997 SC 264,
30. Report of Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, Vol. I, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Vol. I, India, March 2003.
31. Richard Dirnhofer, Christian Jackowski, Peter Vock, Kimberlee Potter, Michael J. Thali, ‘VIRTOPSY: Minimally Invasive, Imaging guided Virtual Autopsy”. Accessed on 15 September 2012: http://www.rsna.org/rsnarights.
32. Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State ., Accessed on 20 September 2012: http://www.kanoonindia, retrieved on 20 September 2012
33. Sheldon Krimsky and Tania Simoncelli,. Genetic Justice: DNA data banks, Criminal Investigations, and civil liberties, Columbia University Press, Newyork,(2011); at pp-306-307
34. State of Gujarat v. Kishnbhai, MANU/GJ/0506 /2005 35. The Queen v Frank Allan Button [2001] QCA 133.
36. Vinay Kumar vs State, accessed on 25 September 2012: http:/ /www.indiankanoon.org/doc/
37. http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia/term/55824/virtual autopsy.