History and development of Forensic Science in India

The application of science and technology to the detection and investigation of crime
and administration of justice is not new to India. Although our ancestors did not know
forensic science in its present form, scientific methods in one way or the other seem to
have been followed in the investigation of crime. Its detailed reference is found in
Kautilya's `Arthashastra,' which was written about 2300 years ago. Indians studied
various patterns of the papillary lines, thousands of years ago. It is presumed that they
knew about the persistency and individuality of fingerprints, which they used as
signatures. Even Mr. KM Kata, a frequent contributor to `Nature', stated that the
Chinese records proved the use of fingerprints in an ancient kingdom of southern India.
The Indians knew for long that the handprints, known as the Tarija', were inimitable. The
use of fingerprints as signatures by illiterate people in India, introduced centuries ago,
was considered by some people as ceremonial only, till it was scientifically proved that
identification from fingerprints was infallible .

Chemical Examiner's Laboratories

During the nineteenth century, when the cases of death due to poisoning posed a
problem to the law enforcement agencies, a need was felt for isolating, detecting and
estimating various poisons absorbed in the human system. The first Chemical
Examiner's Laboratory was, therefore, set up for this purpose at the then Madras
Presidency, under the Department of Health, during 1849. Later, similar laboratories
were set up at Calcutta (1853), followed by one each at Agra (1864) and Bombay
(1870). These laboratories were equipped to handle toxicological analysis of viscera,
biological analysis of stains of blood, semen, etc. and chemical analysis of food, drugs,
and various excisable materials to provide scientific support to the criminal justice
delivery system within their limited means. These laboratories also provided analytical
facilities to the neighboring States and Union Territories.
Anthropometric Bureau

While some progress was made in the identification of poisons, the identification of
people, specifically criminals, was still being done in a rather haphazard manner.
Policemen would try to memorize convict's face so that they could recognize him if he
got involved in another crime later. With the introduction of Photography, the Criminal
Investigation Department (CID) maintained records of every known criminal including a
detailed description of his appearance. With the invention of Bertillon's anthropometric
system in 1878, India, along with the other countries of the world, adapted Bertillon's
system of personnel identification and thus an Anthropometric Bureau, for maintaining
anthropornetric records of criminals, was established in 1892 at Calcutta.

Finger Print Bureau

William Herschel, the Collector of the District of Hooghly (Bengal) found that markings
on the fingertips of a person never changed during his lifetime. Herschel applied his
knowledge and skill in devising a system of registration of finger or thumb impressions
of native contractors to safeguard the interests of the Government against the
repudiation of contracts by them. Thereafter, he extended his registration procedure to
prison regulations for identifying convicted criminals. In 1877, Herschel sought the
consent of his superior officers in putting his ideas into practice, but did not succeed. In
1891, Edward Richard Henry's appointment, the Inspector General of Police in Bengal,
introduced the thumb impressions in the record slips, containing anthropometric data, to
avoid wrong identification. Long before 1897, he introduced maintenance of duplicate
criminal records with impressions of 10 fingers separately.

Henry employed few selected Indian police officers, viz. Khan Bahadur Azizul Huq and
Rai Bahadur Hem Chandra Bose to work under his general supervision till the
classification was evolved, which remains the basic system even today. It was Khan
Bahadur Azizul Huq who evolved a mathematical formula to supplement Henry's idea of
sorting slips in 1024 pigeon holes, based on fingerprint patterns. Rai Bahadur Hem
Chandra Bose made further contribution to the fingerprint science by evolving an
extended system of sub-classification, a telegraphic code for finger impression and a
system of single digit classification.

Henry approached the Government to seek approval for replacing the anthropometric
data by fingerprints for the identification of habitual criminals. Government readily
agreed, and the first fingerprint bureau in the world was officially declared open at
Calcutta in July 1897, although the collection of record slips had started a few years
earlier. Thus, the personnel identification solely on the basis of fingerprints commenced
in India.

Department of Explosives

When the use of explosives for subversive activities became common, it was found
necessary to detect the causes of explosion, either accidental or intentional. The
foundation of the Department of Explosives was laid when the first chief inspector of
explosives was appointed in the year 1898, with his headquarters at Nagpur. Later, five
regional offices at Calcutta, Bombay, Agra, Madras and Gwalior, and three suboffices at
Shivkashi. Gomia and Asallsol were opened. They developed competence to provide
scientific clues in respect of explosives as well as the possible causes of explosions.
Their expertise came handy in police investigations in the crimes related to explosions
and for evolving various provisions under the Explosives & Petroleum Act.

Government Examiner of Questioned Document, Shimla

The British Government of Bengal felt the necessity of identifying the handwritings on
the secret documents connected with the Indian independence movement and,
therefore, created the post of Government Handwriting Expert of Bengal. Mr. CR
Hardless, the then Superintendent in the A.G.'s office in Bengal, was appointed to this
post in 1904. This setup was shifted to Shimla in the year 1906 and was placed under
the control of the Director, CID. A post of Handwriting Expert for the Government of
India was created and Mr. CR Hardless was appointed to this post. He was replaced by
Mr. F Brewester, a police officer from the West Bengal CID, and was designated as the
Government Examiner of Questioned Documents (GEQD). At first, the work of this
office was mainly confined to the identification of writings on secret documents. Later,
as the application of this branch of science was felt in many other cases, the services of
this office were thrown open to criminal as well as civil court cases. During the World
War II, this organization took up the additional work of secret censorship, including the
detection of invisible writings and training of military personnel in this field of science.

Serologist to the Government of India

When the science of examining human blood developed in India, it became possible to
examine blood and seminal stains in criminal investigations. Realising the importance of
Forensic Serology, an institute named as Serology Department' was established in
Calcutta in 1910. The head of this institute was designated as Imperial Serologist to the
Government of India. Dr. Hankin helped in establishing this department. Though the
scientific techniques for serological examination were at the infancy stage, this institute
provided valuable scientific support by analyzing biological materials for crime
investigations. After independence, the department was renamed as `Office of the
Serologist and Chemical Examiner to the Government of India'.

Footprint Section of Criminal Investigation Department

During the year 1915, a Footprint Section was established under the CID, Government
of Bengal, which helped the police authorities to identify criminals through the
examination of footprints collected from the scene of crime. SM Edwardes recorded the
following instance in his book `Bombay City Police' showing the use of the footmarks in
police work. `On several occasions, Indian constables distinguished themselves by acts
of bravery and examples of professional acumen. The detection of a burglary in the
showroom of an English firm was entirely due to the action of a Hindu constable, who
noticed on a piece of furniture the marks of a foot possessing certain peculiarities, which
he remembered having seen before in the foot of an ex-convict.'
Note Forgery Section in Criminal Investigation Department

During 1917, a Note Forgery Section was set up under the CID, Government of Bengal,
to undertake the examination of forged currency notes. The Revenue Department also
started its own laboratory for identification of opium and narcotics, liquor analysis and
estimation of purity levels of precious metals like gold, silver, etc. Similarly, Government
Mint and Security Printing Departments at Nasik also established their own laboratories
for detecting cases of counterfeit and forged currency notes.

Ballistics Laboratory

In 1930, an Arms Expert was appointed and a small ballistic laboratory was set up
under the Calcutta Police to deal with the examination of firearms. As the menace of
firearms grew, other State CIDs also established small ballistics laboratories to help
them in the criminal investigation.

Scientific Sections in the Criminal Investigation Department

During 1936, a Scientific Section was set up under the CID in Bengal and facilities were
created for examination of bullets, cartridge cases, firearms, etc., used in committing
crime. Few other states also started scientific sections in their CID, where investigations
on fingerprints, footprints, firearms and questioned documents were also carried out.
Gradually, more and more branches of science were embraced and the laboratories
gained maturity over the years.

State Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta

The first state forensic science laboratory in India was established in the year 1952 at
Calcutta. This laboratory became fully operational in the year 1953. The Medico legal
Section of the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory was also transferred to this laboratory.
During the year 1955, a small unit of Physics was established in the West Bengal State
Forensic Science Laboratory to deal with various physical examinations of exhibits
encountered in crime investigation. During the year 1957, the Physics unit developed
into a fullfledged Physics Section. In the same year, the Footprint and the Note Forgery
Sections of Criminal Investigation Department were transferred to this laboratory and in
the following year General Chemistry Section of the Chemical Examiner's Laboratory
was also transferred to this laboratory. Thus the first multidisciplinary forensic science
laboratory came into existence in the country.

Central Finger Print Bureau

On the recommendations of the Royal Police Commission of 1902,03, the first Central
Finger Print Bureau (CFPB) in India was established in 1905 at Shimla. It, however,
suffered a setback and was abolished in 1922 as a result of retrenchment proposals of
the Inchape Committee. The CFPB restarted functioning from 1955 in Delhi under the
administrative control of Intelligence Bureau (IB). The major role envisaged for CFPB
was to coordinate the activities of State FPBx in tracing/locating interstate criminals.
During August 1956, the CFPB was shifted to Calcutta and remained under the
administrative control of IB. During September 1973, it was transferred to the Central
Bureau of Investigation and during July 1986, the administrative control of the CFPB
was transferred to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) and was again shifted to
New Delhi.

Central Detective Training School at Calcutta

CDTS, Calcutta, a premier detective training school in India, was established during
1956 and was located (in the same premises) with the CFPB, Calcutta. The aim of
establishing such a school was to impart training in scientific investigation of crimes like
drug abuse, terrorism, explosion, crime against women, investigation of road accidents
and enforcement of traffic laws, etc.

Central Forensic Science Laboratories

The first Central Forensic Science Laboratory was established at Calcutta during 1957.
To begin with, this laboratory was organized into four basic disciplines viz. Forensic
Physics, Forensic Chemistry, Forensic Biology and Forensic Ballistics. For application
of nuclear methods of analysis to criminal investigation, the Neutron Activation Analysis
Unit of CFSL, Calcutta was set up in 1970 at the Bha bha Atomic Research Centre,
Trombay. During the year 1965, the second central forensic science laboratory was
established at Hyderabad, The CFSL, Hyderabad initially established analytical facilities
in the disciplines of Forensic Physics, Forensic Chemistry and Forensic Biology. The
Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh, was established, in the year 1933 at
Lahore was shifted to Chandigarh during 1961. Over the years many full fledged
forensic science laboratories were established in various states.

Central Forensic Institute, Calcutta

With the establishment of CDTS and CFSL, (later on GEQD also) in the same premises,
under the control of Intelligence Bureau, the whole set up was named as the Central
Forensic Institute (CFI), Calcutta. A post of Commandant was created during 1958 to
look after the overall functioning of all these establishments, which had different roles
but with the common larger goal of providing appropriate scientific inputs to the criminal
investigation process and administration of criminal justice in the country.

CDTS at Hyderabad & Chandigarh

The Central Detective Training School, Hyderabad was established in 1964, on the
pattern of the CDTS, Calcutta, followed by another one at Chandigarh, during 1973.
Their main objective was to train the operational police personnel in modern scientific
techniques of crime investigation, with a view to improve their professional standard and
efficiency.

The Role of Central Advisory Committees

The Union Government, during 1959, appointed two committees for the purpose of
giving a lead to all the States in establishing new forensic science laboratories and
improving the existing ones, and for improving the study and application of Forensic
Medicine. These committees were (i) Central Forensic Science Advisory Committee and
(ii) Central Medico legal Advisory Committee. The Central Medico legal Advisory
Committee was to advise the Central and the State Governments on matters pertaining
to medico legal procedures and practices. The Central Advisory Committee on Forensic
Science considered the issues related to the sphere of Forensic Science (excluding
forensic medicine). The Central Medico legal Advisory Committee was discontinued
whereas the Central Forensic Science Advisory Committee was converted into Standing
Committee on Forensic Science during the year 1972, which is functional even today in
BPR&D.

Indian Academy of Forensic Science

The Indian Academy of Forensic Sciences (IAFS) was established in the year 1960.
This academy started a biennial scientific journal, which served as a forum for the
exchange of ideas in forensic science with the other international bodies. The role of the
Academy was also to hold annual scientific meetings/seminars or assist in holding
seminars in forensic science. In fact, it was at the instance of this Academy that the
Government of India established the Neutron Activation Analysis Unit to cater for the
forensic needs in the country.

Teaching of Forensic Science in the Universities

The question of introducing criminology and forensic science as the courses of study at
the university level in India was taken up with the Vice Chancellors of various
universities during 1950, but the progress made in this direction was not encouraging.
The need for university teaching of criminology and forensic science was also stressed
in various annual meetings of the Central Advisory Committee on Forensic Science. A
deputation headed by Shri KF Rustamji met the Chairman, University Grants
Commission in August 1961 and the matter was again taken up by Shri DP Kohli, the
then Director, Central Bureau of Investigation in 1967. As a result of these discussions,
Dr DS Kothari, the then Chairman, University Grants Commission set up a high level
committee to advise the Commission on the steps to be taken for introduction of
Criminology and Forensic Sciences in university education. It recommended that
universities should be encouraged to introduce courses in Criminology at the
undergraduate level and postgraduate courses in Criminology and Forensic Science
should be started only in a central autonomous institution, which should be affiliated to a
university. Consequently three Universities viz., University of Sagar, Madras and Patiala
started undergraduate and postgraduate courses in forensic science. It was further
suggested that, as an initial step in this direction, one institute under the Central
Government should be established in Delhi. The Committee recommended those two
courses viz. Master's Degree in Criminology and Master's Degree in Forensic Science
should be organised in this Institute, besides Diploma courses for in service personnel.
The institute should also be developed as a center for research in Criminology and
Forensic Science and should act as a clearinghouse of up to date information in these
fields.

Institute of Criminology & Forensic Science at New Delhi

After a series of debates at the Government level, it was decided that initially the
Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science should be established only for training the
in service personnel and for conducting research in the field of forensic science. It was
felt that unless the State governments and the consumer organizations agreed to
participate in the scheme, it would not be wise to start courses for granting postgraduate
degrees. However, the ultimate objective of the Institute was to develop into a full
fledged academic institution affiliated to a university. With the above aim in view, the
Institute of Criminology and Forensic Science (ICFS) was established in Delhi during
1971 with the limited objectives of imparting training to the in service personnel and
conducting research in Criminology and Forensic Science. It was also envisaged that
the Institute should have two distinct faculties viz. the Faculty of Criminology and the
Faculty of Forensic Science and both should have a number of eminent teachers and
researchers with adequate background and field experience.
Creation of Forensic Science Division at BPR&D

On an invitation from the Government of India, Dr. VK Street, an eminent forensic

scientist from the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Edinburgh, UK, visited
different Indian forensic science institutions during 1972 and submitted a report to the
Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. He strongly recommended for creation of
a post of Chief Forensic Scientist in the Ministry of Home Affairs to look after its forensic
science activities and to pay whole time attention for the development of this science in
India. The Standing Committee on Forensic Science, during 1973, also recommended
for the creation of a post of Chief Forensic Scientist so that the activities, which needed
scientific inputs at the Union Government level, could be properly coordinated. The post
of Chief Forensic Scientist was finally sanctioned during 1983, and the Forensic
Science Directorate was created in BPR&D.

Recommendations of Scientific Advisory Committee to the Cabinet

During 1983, the then Scientific Advisory Committee to the Cabinet (SACC) under the
overall guidance of an Expert Committee chaired by Prof. M. M. Sharma, FRS,
recommended that the laboratories in Delhi, Calcutta and Hyderabad must be
developed as S & T institutions, functioning in an autonomous fashion, with complete
modernization of equipment and manpower capabilities. In pursuance of these
recommendations, the Government of India declared the forensic science institutions, at
the central Government level as Science and Technology institutions.

Based on the observations of the Expert Group of the SACC, BPR&D evolved a master
plan for restructuring each CFSL of the BPR&D into fifteen scientific divisions. In the
first phase, the three Central Forensic Science Laboratories at Calcutta, Hyderabad,
and Chandigarh were restructured into six scientific division viz. Biology, Ballistics,
Chemistry, Explosive, Physics, and Toxicology. Similarly, the offices of the Government
Examiners of Questioned Documents at Shimia, Calcutta, and Hyderabad were
strengthened in terms of manpower. Besides augmentation of staff, all the BPR&D
laboratories registered significant progress in the acquisition of sophisticated analytical
equipment and updating/modernizing the laboratory and library facilities for smooth
working of these institutions.

A New Mandate to the CFSLS OF BPR&D

During mid 1990's, it was realised that most of the States have established their own
forensic science laboratories and hence the role of CFSLs to provide forensic analytical
support to different states has got diluted. Hence the utility of three CFSLs at the
national level was questioned.

During 1997, this realization led to the process of defining the role of the CFSLs of
BPR&D, de novo. The justification for the existence of the three Central Forensic
Science Laboratories under the BPR&D was thought to be two folds. One, they should
act as epitomes of quality and high standards for the State Laboratories to emulate.
They should not only set visibly higher standards in quality of analytical processes and
reporting accuracy, but also should be the repository of Standards and benchmarks
against which the performance of all the State FSLs can be judged. BPR&D should,
therefore, have a decisive say in the process of accreditation, not only of its own
CFSLs/GEsQD, but also of all the State FSLs. Secondly, since forensic science is one
of the most dynamic sciences, CFSLs should provide R&D support to this field of
science. Every new research, development and invention in any discipline of science
should have a potential of application in forensic science. Newer, better and more
reliable technologies developed in all the disciplines need to be harnessed for the fight
against crime. The BPR&D CFSLs should scout around for new developments outside
the realm of forensic science and adapt them for use in Ms, standardize the processes
and disseminate them to the State FSLs. In order to perform this yeomen service, the
CFSLs need to maintain very high standards and specialization, way beyond what is
possible in the State FSLs.

Strategy was evolved to bring about a complete paradigm change in the structure of
the three BPR&D CFSLs and provide them a new focused mandate of R&D and
specialized training. It emerged that while preserving their composite structure, the
three laboratories should have subject specific exclusiveness and be developed as the
`Centers of Excellence' for research and development and specialized training in the
designated fields. Consequently, during 1998, the three CFSLs were reorganized with
an aim to generate synergy and focus attention on research and development activities
in the thrust areas of forensic science. This was possible only if all the available
resources are pooled in the designated Centers of Excellence, rather than spread them
very thin on the whole ground. Besides focusing on their core activity of R&D and
specialized training in the designated field of forensic science, these laboratories also
undertake crime case examination in all the fields of forensic science. However, the
routine forensic analysis case work has now been restricted to those received from the
Central Government organizations and State Governments/Union Territories, which
have not yet established their own forensic science facilities. These laboratories also act
as the referral centers for handling forensic analysis of crime cases requiring extensive
investigation and high expertise, received from the courts of law, state and central
forensic science institutions and other crime investigating agencies in India. The
designated fields were chosen as follows:

CFSL, Calcutta Forensic Biological Sciences

CFSL, Hyderabad Forensic Chemical Sciences

CFSL, Chandigarh Forensic Physical Sciences

The Neutron Activation Analysis Unit of CFSL, Calcutta, operating at the BARC,
Mumbai, was brought under the administrative control of CFSL, Hyderabad.

Establishment of DNA Typing Laboratory at CFSL Calcutta

In response to the rising demands of providing high technology to the crime

investigation process, BPR&D established the first Forensic DNA Typing facility at
CFSL, Calcutta, during 1998. The implementation of this state of the art technique
represents significant advancements in the forensic biology in the country. The DNA
Typing Unit at CFSL Calcutta is equipped with the most contemporary techniques of
DNA typing, namely, Polymerize Chain Reaction (PCR) based method, HLADQ alpha
and Polymarker technique, and Locus Specific Restricted Fragment Length
Polymorphism technique. This laboratory, after being functional, has been referred
many crime cases pertaining to murder, rape, rape and murder, paternity disputes,
organ transplant, exchange of babies in hospitals etc. DNA Typing facility has further
been upgraded to conduct `Short Tandem Repeats Sequence based DNA Typing .

References

Tewari RK, Ravikumar KV

Bureau of Police Research & Development, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New
Delhi,

1. Tewari RK, KV Ravikurnar. Development of Forensic Science in India: A

Historical Account. Journal of the Indian Academy of Forensic Sciences
1999;38:1732.
2. Tewari RK. Application of Forensic Science in Criminal Justice Administration in
the Developing Countries. The Indian Police Journal1999; XLVI:7883.
3. Nanda BB, RK Tewari. Development of Forensic Science Services at the State
Level. The Indian Police Journal 2000; XLVIXLVII:109119.
4. Iyengar NK. Growth and Development of Forensic Science in India. The Indian
Police Journal 1961; (Special Centenary Issue):145151.
5. Chatterjee SK. History of Fingerprinting in India, The Indian Police Journal
(Special Centenary Issue), 1961, pp 152157
6. Tewari RK, AK Ganjoo. Fifty years of Forensic Science in India: An Introspection,
The Indian Police Journal (Special Issue on Indian Police after 50 years of
Independence), Vol. XLV, No. 1 & 2, Jan June 1998, pp 105110.
7. Tewari RK, KV Ravi Kumar. Nine Decades of Forensic Examination in India, The
Indian Police Journal (Special Issue on Indian Police after 50 years of
Independence), Vol. XLV, No. 1 & 2, Jan June 1998, pp 116122.
8. State of the art Forensic Sciences: For Better Criminal Justice, National Human
Rights Commission, New Delhi, May 1999.
9. Forensic Science in India, Bureau of Police Research & Development, New
Delhi, 1997.
10. Tewari RK. Swantantrata Ke Pachas Varshon Men Nyayalayik Vigyan Ki Pragati,
Uttar Pradesh Police Patrika; 1998.
11. Third Report of the National Police Commission, Govt. of India, Chapter XXIV;
1980. pp 4047.
12. Misra SC. A Handbook on Police Organization and Administration, BPR&D;
1977. pp 138140.
 FORENSIC EVIDENCE CASES

INTRODUCTION

The opinion of an expert is admissible as relevancy fact under section 45 IEA of the evidence
act. The provision incorporated in section 45 IEA is that the court ,in order to form an opinion
upon a point of foreign law ,or of science or art, or as to identity of disputed hand-writing or
finger impression, can treat the opinion of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science
or arts to identity of disputed handwriting, or finger impression as relevant facts on that
particular issue. Thus the opinion of persons, especially skilled in foreign law, science or art as
to the identity of handwriting or finger impression, called expert are relevant facts.

Expert Opinion

The expression as "science" or art as used in section 45 IEA as of wide import and should not be
attributed a narrow meaning. The term of "science" and "art " therefore, have to be construed
widely to include health in their ambit the opinion of an expert in each of such branch.

1 State through CBI New Delhi v. S J Choudhary, AIR 1996 SC 1491

In state of A.P. v/s Madige Boosennu

2. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jailal and others, (1999)

Supreme Court held that an excise inspector's opinion, deposing about the nature of liquor
only on the basis of smell can't be expected as opinion evidence of expert under section 45 of the
evidence act. An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is of supplementary or advisory
nature. Expert opinion evidence must be examined by following way:-1.The scientific criteria
that has been applied;2.The reasons given in support of such opinion and3.The data and
materials used Thus, the expert is required to furnish before the court the necessary scientific
criteria for examine or testing and arriving at result so as to enable the judge to from his
independent judgment by the application of that situation to given facts. The credibility of an
expert witness depends on the reasons and stated in support of conclusion and the tool technique
and materials ,which from the bases of such conclusion

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jailal and others, (1999)

Evidentiary Value of Expert Opinion

An expert is one, who has acquired special knowledge, skill and experience in any science, art,
trade or profession. Therefore the evidence of a witness as opinion of an expert, it must be
shown that he has made a special training of the subject or acquired special knowledge (having
experiences) therein or in other words he has skill and other knowledge in the concerning
subject.

The fact that disputed documents has been written or signed by a specific person can be proved
under section 47 of the evidence act by a person who is acquainted with the handwriting of the
person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed undersection 73. The court is also
empowered to compare the writing, signature or seal ascertain whether a specific disputed
signatory writing or seal is that of a person by whom it purports have been made .Section 73 of
the evidence act empowers the court conducting trial or inquiry to direct an accused person to
give his simples writing to enable the same to be compared by a handwriting expert chosen or
approved by the court

4. . Lalit popli v. Canara Bank and others, (2003)3 S.C6 5836

In the above issues it is also worthy of observation that section 45 IEA and section 73 IEA are
complementary to each other and irrespective of an opinion of the handwriting expert the court
can compare the admitted writing with the disputed writing and come on its own conclusion.
Such exercise of comparison is permissible under section 73 of the Evidence Act.

5 .. AIR 1980 SC 5318. AIR 197(1992)3 SCC 70078 SC 11839

Whenever there is dispute about hand writing ,both parties to the case almost unchangeable, put
before the court their own experts, who make themselves avail-able on hire to swear in favor of
the client paying for them professional fee. This creates very confusing circumstances. In such a
situation, the court must ex-amine the conflicting opinion in the light of objectivity and
probability and should not abdicate its duty to decide which of the opinion correct. In Delhi
Administration v/s Paharancase6 SC laid down that the handwriting a person can be proved in
following way:

1.By an admission of the person who wrote it .

2.By the evidence of some person who saw it written. The above are the best methods to proof of
disputed handwriting. Further there are three other methods of proof by opinion.

International Indexed & Referred Research Journal, December, 2012, ISSN 0974-2832,
RNI-RAJBIL-2009/29954;VOLIV ISSUE-47

1.By the evidence of a handwriting expert.

2.By the evidence of a witness acquainted with the handwriting of the person, who is said to
have written the writing is disputed.

6 . AIR 1980 SC 53110. 2003 SCC 21

The opinion formed by the court on comparison made by it self.The SC held that the above
three cognate modes of proof involve a process of comparison to be made by handwriting expert
or by person familiar with the hand-writing of the person concerned or by the court. State of
Maharashtra v/s Suchdeo Singh and another case6,SC held that before a court can act regarding
the opinion of handwriting expert following to content must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt.1.The genuineness of the specimen of the admitted handwriting of the concerned accused
and,2.That the handwriting expert as a competent, reliable and dependable witness whose
evidence inspires confidence.

Opinion of Finger Prints:-

The science of identification of finger prints ,no doubt, has developed to the state of
exactitude but the main thing to be scrutinized by court write appreciating evidence related
thereto is whether the experts examination is thorough, complete and scientific. In regard to this
issue Supreme Court held in Murarilal v/ s State of M.P7, the risk of an incorrect opinion is
practically nonexistent. Where the finger prints are clear, the court must verify the evidence of
the expert by applying its own mind to similarities and dissimilarities afforded by the finger
prints before coming to the conclusion on way or other. As held in Mohanlal and Another v/s
Ajit Singh and another8, the SC explained a majority of finger prints found at crime scenes or on
crime articleis particularly smudge and it is for the experienced and skilled finger print expert to
say whether a mark is usable as finger print evidence. Similarly it is for a qualified technician to
examine and give his opinion whether the identity can be done on eight or even less identical
characteristics in an appropriate case.
Evidentiary value:-

An expert witness is not wholly reliable. His evidence of an advisory nature regarding
evidentiary value of opinion evidence of handwriting expert it has been observed by the SC in
Murarilal v/s state of M.P9,that generally it is said that it has hazardous to base a conviction
solely on the opinion of an expert. An opinion of experts in general are un reliable but because
human judgment is liable to error and one expert may go wrong because of some defect
observations, some error of premises or honest mistake or conclusion. It is unfair and inferior
type of witness. Again the above view adopted by the SC in case of Alamgir v/s state (NCT
Delhi)10, saw that the science of identification of handwriting has attained more or less a state of
perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. The court went on
further to record that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallized in a
rule of law that opinion evidence of handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless
substantially corroborated.

Conclusion:

In many cases where both parties call experts and conflicting views are heard on the same point.
Again there may be cases where neither side calls an expert being unable to afford one. In all
such circumstances it becomes a plain duty of the court to compare the writing and give its own
views. The duty can't be avoided by taking recourse to the reasoning that the court is to the
reasoning that the court is not an expert. Where there is opinion of experts, that well and the
court, where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from the authorities, text books
and the court's own experience and knowledge. But the court should discharge its duty.
Forensic science and the criminal justice
System
Background
1. Forensic science has been under sustained scrutiny over the last 10 years. It is a complex
discipline that interacts with a range of fields, including science, policing, government and
law. There are clear, deep-rooted challenges that have been identified but not addressed. In
this inquiry the fundamental importance of effective, robust and high-quality forensic
science and its contribution to the justice system have been apparent, as have the dangers
of not supporting and enabling world-class forensic science.
2. Forensic science applies scientific methods to the recovery, analysis and interpretation of
relevant materials and data in criminal investigations and court proceedings. It is both an
intelligence and evidential tool to assist in the delivery of justice.
3. Forensic science is traditionally viewed as a collection of different subdomains with shared
overarching principles, processes, and activities. Within the different sub-domains there is
a range of different primary aims, and variability in terms of the scientific underpinning
and robustness of the methods employed. Professor Peter Sommer, Professor of Digital
Forensics at Birmingham City University, summarised the different categories of forensic
science activity:

• “‘Trace’ or ‘wet’ forensics: where a laboratory carries out one of a series of standard
tests to identify or match some material found at a scene of crime or associated with
an individual

• Interpretation: where the result of the examination of the trace is ambiguous but
nevertheless some sort of inference or conclusion is desired. “Interpretation” may
mean assigning a statistical probability of likelihood, but it can also involve
providing a contextual explanation or hypothesis about events

• Reconstruction of events: where large numbers of different “traces” plus

observations and testimonial evidence are combined by a skilled investigator who
produces a reconstruction of a sequence of events. Examples include road traffic
accidents, murder scenes, the use of mobile phone geolocation data to plot the
movements of its owner over time, and the examination of a computer or smart
phone to show planning and a course of action related to a crime

• Opinion evidence: where an expert has looked at a range of circumstances and offers
opinion on the basis of skill, training and experience”.1

1 Written evidence from Professor Peter Sommer (FRS0009)

4. Forensic science sits at the nexus of science, law, policy and investigation. It should be
viewed as a process that encompasses the crime scene through to court. The following
figure shows the different stages of the process and how forensic evidence and human
decision-making are integral at each stage:

Figure 1: Forensic science from crime scene to court

LABORATORY EVIDENCE
ANALYSIS INTERPRETATION

Evidence Evidence Analysis Results of Interpretation Reporting Presentation

collection submission carried out analysis of results interpretation of findings
COMMITTED

OUTCOME
JUDICIAL
CRIME

CRIME SCENE COURT

Eyewitness Intelligence Interview Decision to

evidence gathering prosecute

POLICING
It has long been an axiom of mine that the little things are infinitely the most important.” So said
the fictional detective, Sherlock Holmes. Armed with his finely honed skills of backwards
reasoning, his trademark ability to solve unsolvable crimes often hinged on his revealing
evidence too small to be noticed.

Holmes was an inspiration for the very founders of modern day forensic science. As the decades
passed and the tools in their armoury grew, so too did the sheen of invincibility that surrounded
their discipline. But there was a crucial chink in their methods that had been overlooked:
subjectivity.

While the likes of Holmes’s successors in detective fiction may lead us to believe that forensic
evidence is based on precise deduction, all too often it relies on a scientist’s personal opinion,
rather than hard fact.

Science on trial

Consider the following case. In December 2009, Donald Gates walked out of his Arizona prison
with $75 and a bus ticket to Ohio. After serving 28 years for a rape and murder he didn’t
commit, he was a free man. Now the spotlight began to shift to the forensic technique that put
him there: microscopic hair analysis.

Human hair is one of the most common types of evidence found at crime scenes. During the 80s
and 90s, forensic analysts in the US and elsewhere often looked to the physical differences
between hairs to determine whether those found at a crime scene matched hairs from a suspect –
like Donald Gates.

When he stood trial in 1982, an FBI analyst called Michael Malone testified that hairs found on
the body of the murder victim – a Georgetown University student called Catherine Schilling –
were consistent with Donald Gates’ hairs. He added that the probability they came from anyone
else was one in 10,000.

“That’s very compelling evidence, particularly when it comes from a witness wearing a white
laboratory coat,” says Peter Neufeld, co-founder of the Innocence Project, a New York-based
non-profit organisation that uses DNA evidence to overturn wrongful convictions.
 The FBI is now reviewing several thousand cases as DNA testing sheds new light on the truth (Credit: Getty
Images)
However, hair analysis is not purely objective; I might think two hairs look identical, but you
might disagree. Even if we agree that two hairs match, no-one has ever figured out how many
other hairs might be similarly indistinguishable from one another. “When a person says that the
probability is one-in-10,000, that’s simply a made-up number,” says Neufeld. “There’s no data to
support it.”

Donald Gates was finally exonerated when DNA testing revealed that the hairs didn’t belong to
him after all. Two similar exonerations followed soon afterwards. As a result of these cases, the
FBI is now reviewing several thousand cases in which its scientists may have offered similarly
misleading testimony. Last month, it announced that of the 268 cases it has reviewed so far that
went to trial, 96% them involved scientifically invalid testimony or other errors by FBI agents.
Among those convicted, 33 received death sentences, and nine have already been executed.

The FBI’s review won’t necessarily overturn the convictions, but it does mean that they need to
be reconsidered carefully. Lawyers scrutinising these cases must work out what other evidence
was presented in court; if they hinged on flawed hair testimony, retrials and exonerations may
follow. In cases where the original physical evidence still exists, that DNA testing may shed new
light on the truth.

Damning report

Even trusted lines of evidence, such as fingerprint analysis, are not water-tight. Research has
shown that the same fingerprint expert can reach a different conclusion about the same
fingerprints depending on the context they’re given about a case.

Based in part on these findings, in 2009 the National Academy of Sciences in the US published a
report on the state of forensic science. Commissioned in response to a string of laboratory
scandals and miscarriages of justice, its conclusions were damning. “Testimony based on faulty
forensic science analyses may have contributed to the wrongful conviction of innocent people,”
it said. “In a number of disciplines, forensic science professionals have yet to establish either the
validity of their approach or the accuracy of their conclusions.”

The report was a wake-up call, not just for forensic scientists in the US, but around the world.
“What it exposed were significant scientific deficiencies across many of the different methods
that we use, both to examine and interpret different types of evidence,” says Nic Daeid, a
professor of forensic science at the University of Dundee in Scotland. 

Of all lines of forensic evidence, DNA analysis was considered to be the most objective. Resting
on complex chemical analysis, it seems stringently scientific – a gold-standard for how forensic
science should be done. Yet perhaps juries should not be too quick to trust the DNA analyses
they see in court.

Even trusted lines of evidence, such as fingerprint analysis, are not water-tight (Credit: Thinkstock)
In 2010, while working as a reporter for New Scientist magazine, I teamed up with Itiel Dror
from University College London, and Greg Hampikian from Boise State University in Idaho, to
put this idea of DNA’s objectivity to the test.

We took DNA evidence from a real-life case – a gang-rape in Georgia, US – and presented it to
17 experienced analysts working in the same accredited government lab in the US.

In the original case, two analysts from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation concluded that the
man who was ultimately convicted of the crime, Kerry Robinson, "could not be excluded" from
the crime scene sample, based on his DNA profile. But when the evidence was shown to our 17
analysts, they reached very different conclusions; just one analyst agreed that Robinson "cannot
be excluded". Four analysts said the evidence was inconclusive and 12 said he could be
excluded.

Yet just because forensic science is subjective, this doesn’t mean it should be disregarded; it can
still yield vital clues that can help to catch and convict murderers, rapists, and other criminals.
“Subjectivity isn’t a bad word,” says Dror. “It doesn’t mean that the evidence isn’t reliable, but it
is open to bias and contextual influences.”

Blind judgement

What’s needed are additional safeguards to shield forensic examiners against irrelevant
information that might skew their judgement. A first step is to ensure they aren’t given irrelevant
information, such as knowing that witnesses have placed the suspect at the crime scene, or that
he has previous convictions for similar crimes. Another safeguard is to reveal the relevant
information sequentially – and only when it is needed. “We need to give them the information
that they need to do their job when they need it, but not extra information that’s irrelevant to
what they’re doing and which could influence their perception and judgement,” says Dror.

In the US at least, this is starting to happen: a national commission on forensic science has been
established, with the goal of strengthening the field – and this includes looking at human factors
like cognitive bias. But similar strategies are needed elsewhere if forensic science is to rebuild its
tattered reputation.

When it comes to deduction and proof, there is still much we can learn from Arthur Conan
Doyle’s hero. As Sherlock Holmes also once said: "Eliminate all other factors, and the one which
remains must be the truth."

Share this story on Facebook,  Google+ or Twitter.

 FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY

. Before we trace the legal footprints of Forensic Psychology in India, it is imperative to

understand the justice system and what part of the puzzle of the judicial system does forensic
psychology fit. When a crime has been committed the point of contact is the police who
eventually collect evidence from the scene of the crime and deliver it to the Forensic science
laboratories. Once the laboratories complete their scientific assessment it is sent to the court of
law to help in deducing who, when, where, what, why and how. Forensic Psychology tends to
play a very important role especially rendering answers to – why? – The motive.

History of forensic psychology in India:

One can trace the roots of Forensic Psychology back to 1968 when the first lie detection division
was set up at the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) of Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI). Initially, there was an absence of formal training centers for professionals to be formally
trained in lie detection. References on how to run lie detection tests were made from books and
papers from the western culture (Reid and Inbau, 1966). Convincing the Indian courts about the
efficient jurisprudence of Forensic Psychology was based on trial and error of scientific tools
used.

The first court-authorized narco-analysis was conducted in 1989 by Dr. S.L. Vaya. However, this
was against the consent of the person in question. She went onto assert that consent and court
sanction were equally important keeping the law and fundamental rights in mind. This test was
also conducted mainly in prisons out of a kit, unlike the facilities that professionals have today.
Presently, narco analysis is conducted in a room which is a replica of an operation theatre with
the help and guidance of a team of professionals which include a Doctor, a nurse, and mental
health practitioner.

In 2010 the supreme court of India ruled that tests such as Narco analysis, Lie detection and
Brain Electrical Oscillation Signature can be conducted with informed consent. Information
discovered with the help of these instruments can be admitted as evidence in the court of law.

A grey field is observed on how the courts find scientific tools used by forensic Psychology
laboratories are invasive of an individual’s fundamental rights and on the other, they use the
information extracted during the procedures to help them with crime scene analysis (Sen, 2015).

India's valuable contribution with respect to crime detection

A contribution made by Prof. C.R. Mukundan, Professor at NIMHANS in 2003, a professor of
psychology who had a keen interest in neuroscience discovered the technique of Brain Electrical
Oscillation Signature (BEOS). This technique taps into the experiential memory stored of a
suspect and not conceptual memory. It assists in deducing whether a suspect was a witness to the
crime or part of the crime based on scientific facts.

As generations’ progress and new advances are made in the world, criminals have become more
stealth. Due to the advancement in technology, the modus operandi of the average criminal has
become cleverer with his interaction at the crime scene. Currently, lesser and lesser physical
evidence is found at the crime scene. This leaves the criminal Justice system to resort to expert
advice of forensic psychologists to help them assimilate a profile to track the culprit down. As
courts now have to rely more on oral or documentary evidence, Information collected with the
help of BEOS from suspects has become an important tool in crime investigation.

This technique, however, has been targeted with a lot of criticism. As BEOS is based on
understanding brain wave readings of EEG’s prove to observe a lot of ‘noise’ during the
procedure, which can deduce the accuracy of the tool. Further, opponents of the method believe
“experiential” and conceptual knowledge do not fall into categories of memory. This
methodology though accepted more openly in the courtroom does require a lot more peer
reviewing and defend its infallible nature.

Role of Forensic Psychologists in the Courtroom

In India, as we know, the police collect the evidence and transport it to the Forensic Laboratory
of the Jurisdiction where experts scientifically examine it. The role of a forensic psychologist
would ideally begin when they are called upon by the police, lawyers or judges to interview and
assess criminals. The formal interview and assessment are then used as corroborative evidence in
the court of law to help execute justice effectively. A Forensic Psychologist can also continue
work towards rehabilitation of a criminal or a victim under court mandate in a medico-legal
ward.

According to the Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section 45 states: " Opinions of experts.—When the
Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or as to identity of
handwriting 35 [or finger impressions], the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled
in such foreign law, science or art, 36 [or in questions as to identity of handwriting] 35 [or finger
impressions] are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts."

As per the above clause, a forensic psychologist assists the judicial system to execute the law in
a just manner by presenting facts. These facts are in the form of reports of in-depth interviews
and thorough assessments of the suspects in question. It must be taken into account that a
forensic psychologist acts as an expert who imparts his knowledge and expertise to the
courtroom, which acts as corroborative evidence. At no point, the expert has the final verdict in
dispensing justice, which shall only be executed by the judge.
A crucial role played by a forensic psychologist or forensic psychiatrist would be to shed light on
the “mens rea’’ of suspects. “Mens rea” addresses the state of mind of the said accused that
generally pleads on ‘not guilty’ in the witness stand during a trial. Those who plead guilty may
claim to have committed a crime under the influence of a substance or be unaware that they have
engaged in the crime. This allows the defense to plead lesser punishment or procrastinate the
final verdict of the judge. In such cases, experts step in and assimilate a thorough forensic
interview and assessment to judge how true the individual’s statement is. This helps the judge
execute a verdict, which is fair and in light of the safety of the society and the individual.

The Indian Evidence Act 1872, section 45, allows forensic psychologists and psychiatrists to
lend their expertise to solving in criminal investigations. This gives forensic psychologists an
opportunity to make forensic psychological methods dynamic, unique and versatile befitting
catering to the needs of cases with the help of feedback procured from the judicial system i.e.
police, lawyers, prosecutors, judges and other forensic professionals they assist.

Rehabilitation in light of offenders

India’s prison system requires a considerable make over. Unlike Canadian and United Kingdom,
Indian prisons are not conducive to rehabilitation. Unfortunately this gives a rise to recidivism of
crime rate in the country. Statistics recorded by the Government of India till 2014, reflect an
overall rate of recidivism of the country is 7.8%. However, statistics of individual states reflects
more concern. The statistics of recidivism in Tripura 54%, Telangana 10.1% and Andhra
Pradesh 7.2%. A significant contributor towards these statistics was from the state of Madhya
Pradesh. Out of 35,23,577 arrested, 32,70,079 were new offenders. 1,95,183 held a conviction of
one imprisonment record, 44,171 were imprisoned twice and 14,144 had been imprisoned three
times or more.

Prisons in India have a hosting capacity for over 366,000 offenders. However, there is more than
110% overcrowding, and an appropriate offender-psychologist ratio would be required in order
to understand the perpetrators' mind sets and guide them through their issues. While the idea that
prison systems are supposed to be rehabilitative in nature is often stressed upon, much needs to
be done in order for that to be put into practice. Indian prisons boast of a capacity to hold
366,000 offenders. However, it is observed that there is a 110% overcrowding. There is lack of
rehabilitative psychologists who would be able to deliver their skill set into guiding prisoners
settling into jails, or life imprisonment. Inmates tend to face an abundance of mental health
issues e.g.: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, personality disorders, substance withdrawal,
schizophrenia etc. attention needs to be paid and prisoners need to be provided with aid to
manage distress. With correct intervention plans for offenders who deal with mental illness, the
rate of psychiatric recidivism decreases. No fixed interventions exist that work on all offenders.
Appropriate assessment is needed in order to effectively deal with offender issues.

Forensic psychologists can carry out individual and group therapeutic interventions as India has
in mental health facilities in India which have been proven effective, similar assessments and
road maps can be made to facilitate inmates to be released back into society in a healthy manner.

Conclussions.

One can observe that the weight of the legal footprints of forensic psychology is not as heavy we
would expect it to be. Currently, it is still used as corroborative evidence in Indian Courts.

Recommendations
An effective standard operating procedure has to be enforced within the system where forensic
psychology comes to play. Standardized Guidelines need to be formed for the smooth
functioning of the system where it clearly suggests where forensic psychology needs to be
involved. Augmentation and training of Forensic psychology will help accelerate the efficiency
of students and professionals. Right man for the right job – the technical skill set of a forensic
psychologist must be taken into account and should take precedence over another professional's
skill set (e.g. clinicians or counselors). Accountability should be instituted into the system where
funds, machines, and manpower is assessed as well e.g. how many trained forensic psychologists
exist in India? Where can they be placed? According to the Bureau of Police Research and
Development (BPRD, 2017), there are 15,579 registered police stations. This opens a gate to
create 15,579 jobs in the market for a specialized skill set like forensic psychology. Prisons
around the country need to employ forensic mental health professionals to sustain the path of
rehabilitation which will eventually show a significant decrease in statistics of recidivism.
Keeping in mind that all crime is man-made and executed, each Forensic Laboratory must have a
Forensic Psychologist or a team to benefit from their skill set. Time is of the essence in every
case. If the current investigating system continues, special training would need to be imparted to
the police who collect evidence including initial interviews of victims and suspects without
effective training. This compromises evidence as their eye for detail may be amiss. A dire need
is to create public awareness of the system and under what circumstances they can seek help of a
forensic psychologist. This awareness can be done at the educational level to make the masses
aware of what comprises forensic mental health. The need of the hour is a functional ecosystem
within the justice field which focuses on harmony of professionals working together with a
collaborative effort more than

a competitive one

REFERENCES
1. Jaiswal BS. Data on Police Organizations (p.22, Databook2017). New Delhi. Deep
Graphics ; 2017
2. Chandran R, Koshy J. Brain Mapping: debate over scientific validity continues. Retrieved
from http://www.livemint.com/Politics/JNbZwqCOiDsXa21mXtUORO/Brain-mapping-
debate-over-scientificvalidity-continues.html ; 2010.
3. Government of India. Constitution of India, Article 20(3),1949.
4. Home. (n.d.). Retrieved February 20, 2018, from http://www.axxonet.com/passion/11-
forensics.
5. Government of India. Ministry of statistics and Programme Implementation. (2015,
December 31).
Retrieved from http://www.mospi.gov.in/statistical-year-book-india/2016/206.
6. India. (1872). Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, Gazette of India, Government printer
(laws).
7. India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of states, National Crime Records Bureau.
(2015, September 7). Recidivism Amongst Persons Arrested Under IPC Crimes.
Retrieved from https://data.gov.in/resources/recidivism-amongst-persons-arrested-under-
ipc-crimes-during-2013.
8. Karandikar, S. (2017, June 18). The case of India’s missing Forensic Psychologists.
Retrieved from
http://www.livemint.com/Sundayapp/tI8ge5WBhG0HXxCW9mKzNM/The-case-of-
Indias-missingforensic-psychologists.html
9. Reid JE, Inbau FE. Truth and Deception: The polygraph (“lie detector) technique.
Williams and Witkins, Baltimore ; 1966.
10. Sen A. Aarushi. Gurgaon, Haryana. Penguin books publication ; 2015.
Forensic science is the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems or proceedings. In law enforcement,
forensic science is largely concerned with testing physical and biological evidence to determine objective facts
about what happened, when it happened, and who was involved. As a result, forensic science capability is important
because it may yield information that is more accurate, precise, and reliable than eyewitness testimony or even
confessions.2Such information, in turn, can increase the success of both investigations and trials in determining the
facts of the case.

2.
As the results of the RAND Forensic Technology Survey and accompanying case studies indicate, there is a pressing
need for more and better forensic science technology—and for well-trained people to use it and present its results.
Key findings include:

• Many crime laboratories have substantial backlogs of evidence not yet tested or otherwise processed. Clearing
these backlogs is a major concern and goal of laboratory directors.

• In attempting to keep up with demand for forensic services, laboratories tend to support prosecutions better than
they support investigations. The result is that fewer criminal investigations are aided than would be the case if
more, timely forensic science ca-
Forensic science is the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems or proceedings. In law enforcement,
forensic science is largely concerned with testing physical and biological evidence to determine objective facts
about what happened, when it happened, and who was involved. As a result, forensic science capability is important
because it may yield information that is more accurate, precise, and reliable than eyewitness testimony or even
confessions.3Such information, in turn, can increase the success of both investigations and trials in determining the
facts of the case.
As the results of the RAND Forensic Technology Survey and accompanying case studies indicate, there is a pressing
need for more and better forensic science technology—and for well-trained people to use it and present its results.
Key findings include:

• Many crime laboratories have substantial backlogs of evidence not yet tested or otherwise processed. Clearing
these backlogs is a major concern and goal of laboratory directors.

• In attempting to keep up with demand for forensic services, laboratories tend to support prosecutions better than
they support investigations. The result is that fewer criminal investigations are aided than would be the case if
more, timely forensic science capacity were available. This in turn would increase the likelihood of success. 4

55
3 For compelling arguments supporting this, see Scheck, Neufeld, and Dwyer (2000).

55
4 Here is how one lab director described his situation to us: “While we are meeting most prosecution needs by trial date in all disciplines, we
believe investigative support requires case turnaround in less than 30 days while the case is still active. This is especially true in property crimes,
such as burglary, because the police case goes inactive. Slow turnaround limits the effectiveness of forensic databases such as AFIS. Police
become discouraged from submitting evidence in cases without suspects or arrests. Low volume needs of investigators are not being met due to
the high cost per sample of providing quality-assured service.”