dna, microscopic, cell-1903319.jpg


DNA (deoxyribonucleic corrosive) is the most essential hereditary material tracked down in the body cells of every single person. It decides the way of behaving, human and body character of a person. It is fundamentally a heredity material in people that no two individuals (other than indistinguishable twins) share.


DNA profiling is not another term for Indian Criminal Investigation, however unquestionably of course less one. DNA tests are permissible in Indian courts and throughout the time it has been created to a decent degree of precision. DNA (Deoxyribonucleic corrosive), otherwise called the structure block or hereditary outline of life, was first depicted by the researchers Francis H. C. Kink and James D. Watson in 1953. The example of the mixtures that comprise the DNA of a singular living being decides the improvement of that person. DNA is similar in each cell throughout a singular body, whether it is a skin cell, sperm cell, or platelet.

Except for indistinguishable twins, no two people have a similar DNA outline. DNA examination, or DNA profiling, looks at DNA found in actual proof like blood, hair, and semen, and decides if it very well may be matched to DNA taken from explicit people. DNA examination has turned into a typical type of proof in criminal preliminaries. It is likewise utilized in common suits, especially in cases including the assurance of Paternity of Identity by the Supreme Court of the United States in Maryland v King. The approach of DNA innovation is one of the main logical headways of our time. The maximum capacity for utilization of hereditary markers in medication and science is as yet being investigated, yet the utility of DNA distinguishing proof in the law enforcement framework is as of now undisputed. Starting from the principal utilization of scientific DNA examination to get an attacker and killer, the courts have recognized that DNA testing has an unparalleled capacity to both, excuse the wrongly sentenced and to distinguish the blameworthy. It can essentially further develop both the law enforcement framework and police examination rehearses.


DNA innovation has been utilized in both Civil and Criminal matters. While validating proof and Disaster Victim Identification expected in Criminal cases, DNA innovation has been utilized. DNA can likewise be utilized to recognize hoodlums with staggering precision where natural proof is required. In Civil issues, DNA innovation is utilized to decide the hereditary, blood connection, support of a kid, and family relationship. DNA for the most part works or is utilized in two ways to tackle violations. At the point when a suspect is distinguished and his example or DNA will be contrasted and the proof got from the crime scene, this correlation makes it simple to decide if the suspect had carried out the wrongdoing or not. Another case comes, where the suspect has not been distinguished and the organic proof got from the crime scene would be contrasted and the guilty parties’ profiles in DNA data sets which assist in recognizing the wrongdoer.

In criminal matters, DNA profiling has not just assisted in breaking cold cases and connecting violations with lawbreakers yet additionally supports the ID of casualties generally speaking. As a rule, the casualties are being killed with an overall viewpoint of concealing the personality of the lawbreaker and because of durable examination methods, it becomes hard to interface recuperated body stays with the person in question.

In such circumstances, DNA profiling ends up being a curse. It likewise aids in further demonstrating the culpability or blamelessness of the denounced yet treating the DNA proof might lead the case in a misguided course because of which courts are left with no other choice but to give the advantage of the uncertainty to the charged. An amazing occurrence for this was Santosh Kumar Singh v State through CBI, otherwise called the Priyadarshini Mattoo case.

The altering of proof alongside the terrible examination was the greatest obstacle looked at by the arraignment in the preliminary. The cherry on top was that the DNA test demonstrated assault however again that was being altered during the examination which makes an advantage of uncertain circumstances for the blamed person. Regardless of many confirmations inclining toward the prosecution, the trial court vindicated the charged individual expressing that CBI had bombed on a few counts specifically disguising from the court that the confirmations gathered by it, were manufactured for the denounced. Likewise, an appropriate system for leading the DNA test denies the court a valuable chance to judicially audit it.


DNA is one of the most remarkable examination apparatuses with a special case of indistinguishable twins which implies that the DNA of every individual contrasts from one another and no two individuals exist having a similar DNA. DNA has excellent evidential worth. On the off chance that any DNA proof has been gathered from the crime location, it lays out an immediate connection with the guilty party and can wipe out the different suspects from doubt. For instance, during an assault, natural proof like semen, blood, skin cells, body hair, and so on, can be left at the crime location or the victim’s body. The organic proof got from the crime location would be contrasted with the wrongdoers’ profiles in DNA data sets which assist in distinguishing the guilty party. This is the way DNA innovation help in a fair preliminary in rape cases as well as in cases connected with hijacking, aggressive behavior at home, murder, and DNA innovation assist Civil courts with settling the question matters of common cases.

The compelling DNA as an evidential apparatus helps in looking at and dissecting the disposal of suspects having legitimate admittance to the crime scene at the hour of the wrongdoing. At the point when DNA has been received from the crime scene, it can begin taking out the suspects approaching the crime scene yet their DNA isn’t coordinated with the organic proof gathered from the place and that is the way this DNA innovation helps in a fair preliminary by segregating the blameless individuals who were available at the crime location however not having any connection with the wrongdoing.


In India, at first, judges took a moderate view concerning the evidential worth of DNA innovation in settling the maternity and paternity question cases. The Indian legal executive frequently deals with issues in responding to an inquiry for example while concluding fatherly obligations, the natural rate ought to be given need over the friendly rate. DNA rate testing can give proof that shows that an individual has a blood connection or natural association with a departed individual or can assist an individual with involvement in the suit.

Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 says that assuming a kid was brought into the world during the continuation of a substantial marriage between his mom and any man or on the other hand on the off chance that a youngster was brought into the world inside a time of 280 days after the disintegration of marriage and the mother stays unmarried during that period, it is the convincing verification that the kid is a genuine offspring of that man, until and except if the man shows that he had no admittance to the mother of a kid during the concerned period. Presently, DNA testing can be utilized to decide the paternity of the youngster and can without much of a stretch supplant this segment, as DNA testing can undoubtedly sort out the authenticity of that kid. Be that as it may, DNA testing decides the natural rate, as opposed to the social rate.


Assuming one examines the plenty of cases over utilization of DNA proof one can be guaranteed that there are a few misgivings about the manners by which such touchy information can be utilized in the Indian situation. This carries us to examine the central issues which have hindered the execution of the utilization of the innovation as well as the impending DNA Bill. A portion of the hindrances in execution have been expressed underneath.

First is the autonomy of the scientific organizations, which, most importantly, is depicted under the policing and the particular Home Department. Without having sufficient autonomy, there are higher possibilities of proof altering and misusing. Furthermore, the measuring labs don’t have the labor required or in any event, working infrastructure. Many specialists are expected for legitimate examination, individuals for conveying the advancement between the specialists, and in particular, between the criminological wing and the police. Thirdly, the police and the research officials must be completely prepared for taking care of the crime scene and gathering the proof. Right now inferable from an ill-advised or even absence of essential preparation required, individuals sent at the crime location obliterate the crucial confirmations which might have demonstrated so assuming it had been gathered by an authority prepared, as the person in question would have applied the fundamental information with ability and diligence. Lastly, and above all, India needs a devoted regulation that can legitimize the utilization of DNA proof for examinations, and the equivalent will not be exclusively left for the court to decide. Detailed regulation is probably going to cure all the previously mentioned limitations.

Notwithstanding the previously mentioned viewpoints, there lie more prominent difficulties because of which the courts also are reluctant to involve scientific proof in a criminal examination. Some of them, as indicated by the courts are amateurish direct of actual proof, including ill-advised assortment, or not gathering the proof, protecting the proof, no upkeep of chain of authority, as well as careless and postponed dispatch of actual proof for logical investigation. Different reasons incorporate not sending a charged person for medico-lawful assessment, non-lifting of fingerprints by the researching official (IO), or when the bloodstained human item had been sent for synthetic assessment without covering a similar following the capture of something similar. The courts are normally constrained to dismiss the report. There are additionally specialized lacunas that lead to altering of the proof like the postponed review of shows, non-notice of blood bunch in serologist’s report, ill-advised tests, and so forth.


The presentation of DNA profiling has represented a few serious difficulties to the legitimate privileges of an individual, for example, the Right to Privacy and Right against self-implication which is the reason its been declined as proof by the Courts in some cases. Additionally, the acceptability of the DNA proof under the watchful eye of the court generally relies upon its exact and legitimate assortment, safeguarding, and documentation which can fulfill the court that the proof which has been placed in front of it is solid.

There is no particular regulation present in India that can give specific rules to the examining organizations and the court, and the method to be embraced in the cases including DNA as its proof. Nonetheless, a few arrangements permit the assessment of an individual blamed for assault by a clinical expert and the clinical assessment of the assault casualty separately yet the tolerability of these confirmations has stayed far-fetched as the assessment of the Supreme Court and different High Courts in different choices stayed clashing.

Judges don’t prevent the logical exactness and decisiveness from getting DNA testing, yet at times they don’t concede these confirmations on the ground of legitimate or established restriction and now and again the public strategy. The Patna high court, in Rajiv Singh v. The State of Bihar alluded to OJ Simpson case and noticed the potential mistakes at different stages engaged with DNA technique and noticed:

One of the enduring impacts of the OJ Simpson case will probably be a more noteworthy examination by safeguard attorneys of the arraignment’s scientific DNA proof introduced in criminal cases. In the Simpson case, the protection, put the wrongdoing research facility being investigated.

There is no significant question about the basic logical standards in DNA profiling, be that as it may, the ampleness of research facility systems and the skill of the specialists who affirm ought to stay open to request. Although there is a typical agreement among established researchers that DNA profiling can yield results with an extremely high likelihood, the complicated technique of DNA profiling isn’t without issues. At each period of the seven-step methodology recently portrayed, botches and an ill-advised treatment of the DNA test can deliver misleading outcomes which at times can prompt lifelong incarceration or even capital punishment judgment.

Subsequently, the ampleness of lab methods and the capability of the specialists who affirm ought to stay open to request. The assortment of organic proof remains part of the most extreme significance in the scientific examination. The controls or pollution of tests whether volunteer or carelessly may vitiate the master report.


It may very well be securely presumed that the Supreme Court is yet to think with point-by-point knowledge about the sacred legitimacy of different measurable devices for uncovering reality during examination even though there have been many cases whose conviction and guiltlessness depended on the DNA proof. To make the innovation of DNA profiling more dependable, the authorities and court need to concoct specific rules or regulations so there will be lesser messed-up examinations as are the possibilities of the unnatural birth cycle of equity.

This article is written by Arpita Kaushal of UILS, PUSSGRC , HOSHIARPUR.


  1. Khyati Jain, ‘Challenges and concerns in Admission of DNA evidence in India: With special reference to DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019’ (SCC Online Blog, 6 April 2022), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2022/04/06/challenges-and-concerns-in-admission-of-dna-evidence-in-india/ ( last accessed on 27 June, 2022 ).
  2. Maryland v King 133 S.Ct. 1958 (2013).
  3. Santosh Kumar Singh v State, (2010) 9 SCC 747.
  4. V.R. Dinkar,  Forensic Scientific Evidence: Problems and Pitfalls in India, 3 International Journal of Forensic Science & Pathology, 79, 80 (2015).
  5. Rajiv Singh v. The State of Bihar,( 2010) 9 SCC 747.
  6. People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, 28 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 461 (1997).

This article is written by Arpita Kaushal, a student of UILS, PUSSGRC , HOSHIARPUR.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *