Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

DNA Fingerprinting: Advancements and Future Endeavors pp 181–205Cite as

Three Decades of DNA Evidence: Judicial Perspective and Future Challenges in India

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

During last 30 years, DNA has emerged as a potent forensic tool in advancing justice in India as well as throughout the globe. DNA profiling assists in human identification with great precision and is used for various purposes including adjudication of civil and criminal matters. In criminal domain, DNA helps in stitching crime with criminal and in identification of victim. In civil courts, DNA has increasingly been used in resolving paternity disputes by identifying putative father despite not being recognized under Indian legal lexicon. Presumption of legitimacy under Section 112 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, recognizes socio-legal father provided a child is born within lawful wedlock. Earlier ‘presumptive’ father, a legal fiction, and ‘putative’ father, a genetic reality, were assumed to be the one and the same person, but DNA has exposed the ‘genetic truth’ of childbirth by lifting the veil from ‘twin fatherhood’ and has opened a Pandora’s box in Indian legal panorama by heralding coexistence of both socio-legal and putative father especially under laws of inheritance. This article attempts to explore the legal trends for paternity determination by using DNA profiling through examining various judicial pronouncements of Indian courts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In the United Kingdom, two minor girls were raped and murdered in two different incidents, first in Narborough, Leicestershire, in November 1983, and the second in Enderby, also in Leicestershire, in July 1986. Interestingly, the real accused Colin Pitchfork, who later confessed the felony and was convicted for life imprisonment, bribed a man named Ian Kelly for giving blood sample in his name to conceal his identity during DNA dragnet.

  2. 2.

    Firstly, is there a theory, which is generally accepted in the scientific community, which supports that DNA test can produce reliable results? Secondly, are there currently existing techniques or experiments which are generally accepted in scientific community, capable of producing reliable results in DNA identification?, and, thirdly, did the testing laboratory perform the accepted scientific techniques in analysing the forensic sample in the particular case?

  3. 3.

    People v. Castro 545 N.Y.S.2d 985 (Sup. Ct.1989). It was the first case where DNA profile was seriously challenged for DNA admissibility. Castro was accused of double murder of his neighbour and her baby daughter. A blood stain was lifted from Castro’s watch for a DNA match with the victims. The court held that: (i) DNA identification theory and practice and techniques applied are generally accepted among the scientific community. (ii) The accreditation of the DNA laboratory was also needed to its reliability to observe the established scientific standards. The Castro ruling supports the proposition that DNA identification evidence of exclusion is more presumptively admissible than DNA identification evidence of inclusion. In Castro’s case, the court ruled that DNA tests could be used to show that blood on Castro’s watch was not his, but tests could not be used to show that the blood was that of his victims. The court observation in this case was based on Frye test established in Frye v. the United States 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.), 1923. However, Castro’s case was never tried. He pleaded guilty to the murders in late 1989.

  4. 4.

    The Fifth Amendment of US Constitution reads that ‘No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself’.

  5. 5.

    Five guidelines are (1) that courts in India cannot order blood test as a matter of course; (2) wherever applications are made for such prayers in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be entertained; (3) there must be a strong prima facie case in that the husband must establish non-access in order to dispel the presumption arising under Section 112 of the Evidence Act; (4) the court must carefully examine as to what would be the consequence of ordering the blood test; whether it will have the effect of branding a child as a bastard and the mother as an unchaste woman; and (5) no one can be compelled to give sample of blood for analysis.

  6. 6.

    The skeletal remains (a skull, pelvis, teeth and limb bones) were recovered from the forest area of Gagode Khurd village in Pen Tehsil of Raigad district in the state of Maharashtra (India).

    Sheena murder case: DNA from Raigad bones matches Indrani Mukerjea’s blood sample” DNA Daily News Analysis, 08 September, 2015 (http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-sheena-murder-case-dna-from-raigad-bones-matches-indrani-mukerjea-s-blood-samples-2122955).

  7. 7.

    The Courts hold similar ratio in Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1997) 7 SCC 675, Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh (2003) 10 SCC 228, and Kamalanatha v. State of Tamil Nadu Appeal (crim.) 611–612 of 2003 in the Supreme Court of India, decided on April 05, 2005. The legal question arises, what shall be the impact of adverse inference or DNA test result when Section 112 does not recognize any other person as legitimate father than one who is the legitimate husband of the mother of child. Merely determining the putative father without there being accepted in society and recognized under the law may not yield desired result for the petitioner.

  8. 8.

    The phrase ‘the best interest of child’ denotes the well-being of a child and Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Right of the Child, 1989 (UNCRC): For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

  9. 9.

    In property disputes, DNA technology is frequently used by higher judiciary to ascertain claims of the petitioner for establishing genetic linkages with the respondent. Darshan Singh v. Amarjit Singh @ Surjit Singh @ Kaka Singh Criminal Petition No. 2614 of 2014 Swarna Kanta v. Amarjit Singh @ Surjit Singh @ Kaka Singh v. Darshan Singh, Criminal Petition No. 3104 of 2014, both petitions dealt together in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, decided on July 21, 2014; Smt. H. Susheela v. G. Hanumanthappa Regular First Appeal No. 1219 of 2013, In the High Court of Karnataka, decided on September 25, 2014; and Namdeo Babasaheb Korde v. Babasaheb @ Babrao Ramkrishna, W.P. No. 7402 of 2012, In the Bombay High Court, decided on December 21, 2013.

  10. 10.

    Surrogacy has two variants, viz. gestational and traditional. The gestational surrogate mother has no genetic contribution to the foetus and only carries artificially fertilized embryo to the term. In traditional surrogacy the ovum belongs to the surrogate.

  11. 11.

    Section 375 of Indian Penal Code: A man is said to commit rape if he penetrates his penis, or any part of his body or any object into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or make her to do so with him or other person, against her will or without her consent.

References

  1. Sanders J (2000) Forensic case book of crime. True Crime Library/Forum Press, London, p 229 ISBN 1-874358-36-2

    Google Scholar 

  2. Tande CM (1989) DNA typing: a new investigatory tool. Duke Law J 1989(2):474–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Jeffrey S, Alec J, Wilson V, Thein SL (1985) Hypervariable ‘Minisatellite’ regions in human nature. Nature 314:67; “Individual-specific ‘Fingerprints’ of human DNA,” Nature 316(1985):76

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andrews v. State of Florida (1988) 533 So.2d 841

    Google Scholar 

  5. People v. Wesley 140 Misc. 2nd 306, 533 N. S. Y. 2nd 643 (Co. Ct. 1988)

    Google Scholar 

  6. 133 S.Ct. 1958 (2013).District Attorney’s office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, 557 U.S.52, 55 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Edward C, Lundregan T, Miller N, McEwen T (1996) Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. U. S. Department of Justice

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jayaraman KS (1989) Cut price fingerprints. Nature 340:175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. II (1991) DMC 499)

    Google Scholar 

  10. In various cases like Gautam Kundu v. State of West Bengal 1993 (2) Scale 994. O. 6/95 and N. D. Tiwari v. Rohit Shekhar FAO(OS) No. 547/2011, the High Court of Delhi, decided April 27, 2012, the paternity was decided by DNA Profiling and justice was delivered to victims including maintenance to abandoned children and concubines. Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India [1984] AIR SC 469; Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik [2014] Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 2014 (Special Leave Petition Crim. No. 8852 of 2008, January 06, 2014); Rajiv Gandhi assassination (D.No.1151/1998, SC); Priyadarshini Mattoo (Santosh Kumar Singh v. CBI, 139 (2007) DLT 407, I (2007) DMC 654), and Poetess Madhumita Shukla (Amar Mani Tripathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh through CBI, Crim. Appeal No. 1248/2005, SC, Sept. 26, 2005). Verma SK, Goswamy GK (2014) DNA Evidence: The current perspective and future challenges in India, FSI. pp 183–9

    Google Scholar 

  11. Davis AR (1994) Are you my mother? The scientific and legal validity of conventional blood testing and DNA fingerprinting to establish proof of parentage in immigration cases. 1BYU L Rev 129–149. Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/lawreview/vol1994/iss1/1 (Last visited on January 12, 2018)

  12. Virkler K, Lendev IK (2009) Analysis of body fluids for forensic purposes: from laboratory testing to non-destructive rapid confirmatory identification at a crime scene. Forensic Sci Int 188:1–17

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Tande CM (1989) DNA typing: a new investigatory tool. Duke Law J 1989(2):474–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson V, Thein SL (1985) Hypervariable ‘minisatellite’ regions in human DNA. Nature 314:67–73

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Romelka JM, Yan F (2013) Recent advances in forensic DNA analysis. J Forensic Res S12:001

    Google Scholar 

  16. Williamson AL (2012) Touch DNA: forensic collection and application to investigations. J Assoc Crime Scene Reconstr 18:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  17. Jeffreys AJ, Wilson V, Thein SL (1985) Individual-specific ‘fingerprints’ of human DNA. Nature 316:76–79

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Roewer L (2013) DNA fingerprinting in forensics: past, present, future. Investig Genet 4:22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bhatt JN (2003) A profile of forensic science in juristic journey. SCC (Jour) 8:25

    Google Scholar 

  20. Iyengar A, Hadi S (2014) Use of non – human DNA analysis in forensic science: a mini review. Med Sci Law 54:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Neufeld PJ, Oclman N (1990) When science takes the witness stand. Sci Am 18, 262

    Google Scholar 

  22. Jeffreys AJ, Brookfiled FY, Semeonoff R (1985) Positive identification of an immigration test case using human DNA fingerprint. Nature 317:818

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Kelly KF, Rankin JJ, Wink RC (1987) Methods and applications of DNA fingerprinting: a guide for the non-scientist. Criminal Law Review 105–108 note, “Stemming the DNA tide; a case for quality control guidelines” Hamline Law Review, 16 (1992):211:213–214

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1991) Forensic DNA analysis: issues. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Washington, DC, p 4 note 8

    Google Scholar 

  25. Dodd V, Laville S (2012) Stephen Lawrence verdict: Dobson and Norris guilty of racist murder. The Guardian, January 03, 2012. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/03/stephen-lawrence-verdict-guilty-murder. (Last visited on January 12, 2018)

  26. 533 So.2d 841 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  27. James R (2009) A brief history of DNA Testing. Time 19 June, 2009

    Google Scholar 

  28. The District Court Of Columbia introduced “general-acceptance” test in Fyre v. United States [293 F. 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1923]

    Google Scholar 

  29. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical (1993) 125 L.Ed. 125 2d. 469

    Google Scholar 

  30. 3 F. 3d 1191 (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  31. R v. Lewis (1987) 88 F.L.R. 104

    Google Scholar 

  32. R v. Trans (1990) 50 A Crim R. 233

    Google Scholar 

  33. R v. Turner (1975) 1 Q.B. 834

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lander ES (1989) DNA fingerprinting on trial. Nature 339:501; Scheck BC (1994) DNA and Daubert. Cardozo L Rev. 15:1959

    Google Scholar 

  35. 611 N.Y.S.2d 97 (1994), 633 N.E.2d 451

    Google Scholar 

  36. Burk DL (1988) DNA Fingerprinting: possibilities and pitfalls of a new technique. Jurimet J 455; Lander ES (1989) DNA Fingerprinting on trial. Nature 339; Kaye, DH (1991) The admissibility of DNA testing. Cardozo L Rev 353; Lampert R (1991) Some caveats concerning DNA as criminal identification evidence with thanks to Reverend Bayes. Cardozo L Rev 303

    Google Scholar 

  37. 545 NY S 2d 985 (Sup Ct. 1989)

    Google Scholar 

  38. 821 F. 2d 1186 (6th Cir. 1987) para 79

    Google Scholar 

  39. 1999 WL 233592 at 13 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 20. 1999)

    Google Scholar 

  40. 776 A.2d 1091 (Conn. 2001)

    Google Scholar 

  41. 181 DLR (4th) 320 (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  42. In CBI v. Santosh Singh AIR 1994 SC 786, the defense alleged of tampering with the DNA sample and the burden to rebut the allegation lies on the prosecution

    Google Scholar 

  43. 2015 SCC OnLine SC 1336

    Google Scholar 

  44. 2003 Cr.LJ. 4508 (A.P.)

    Google Scholar 

  45. AIR 1994 SC 786. In Appeal, the view of court was upheld by the Supreme Court [State of Karnataka v. M. V. Mahesh (2003) 3 SCC 353]

    Google Scholar 

  46. (1977) 23 EHRR 313

    Google Scholar 

  47. Liff v. Liff (Orse Rigby) 1948 WN 128

    Google Scholar 

  48. W. v. W. (1963) 2 All ER 841 (CA) P 67; S. v. McC [1972] A.C. 24

    Google Scholar 

  49. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Deomen Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125

    Google Scholar 

  50. AIR 1961 SC 1808: 1962 SCR (3) 10

    Google Scholar 

  51. 2010 7 SCC 263

    Google Scholar 

  52. Naik AKV v. The State of Andhra Pradesh. 1977 Cri LJ 1797 (Para 20)

    Google Scholar 

  53. 1976 Cri LJ 1680

    Google Scholar 

  54. Thogorani @ K. Damayanti v. State of Orissa 2004 Cr. LJ 4003 (Ori)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Kodi Satish Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh 133 S.Ct. 1958 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Olavarupu Venkataswarlu v. Polavarappu Subbaya AIR 1951 Madras 910

    Google Scholar 

  57. Vasu v. Santha 1975 Ker LT 533

    Google Scholar 

  58. AIR 1987 SC 1049

    Google Scholar 

  59. AIR 1963 Guj 250

    Google Scholar 

  60. AIR 1986 MP 57

    Google Scholar 

  61. Satpathy DP v, Dixit BP (2000) Cri LJ 1: AIR 1999 SC 3348; Smt. Kaomti Devi v. Poshiram, 2001 (5) SCC 311); Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit AIR 2001 SC 2266: 2001 Cri LJ 2615; Amarjit Kaur v. Harbhajan Singh 2003 (10) SCC 228; Bharti Raj v. Sumesh Sachdeo AIR 1986 All 259; Sadashiv Mallikarjun Kheradarkar v. Nandini Sadashiv Mallikarjun Khedarkar 1995 Cri LJ 4090 (Bom); K. Selvaraj @ Surendan v. P. Jayakumari 2000 Cri LJ 4748 (Kerala); Syed Mohammad Ghouse v. Noorunnissa Begum (2001) Cri LJ 2028 (Andhra Pradesh); Haribhai Chanabhai Vora v. Keshubhai Haribhai Vora AIR 2005 Guj 157

    Google Scholar 

  62. 1993 AIR SC 2295

    Google Scholar 

  63. 2005 (4) SCC 449

    Google Scholar 

  64. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 6 SCC 348. Para 52 (j)

    Google Scholar 

  65. 2007 CriLJ 964

    Google Scholar 

  66. 2007 CriLJ SC 4008

    Google Scholar 

  67. (2005) 8 SCC 21

    Google Scholar 

  68. State through Reference v. Ram Singh, Crim App. No. 1398/2013, The High Court of Delhi, Decided on March 13, 2014

    Google Scholar 

  69. Kamalanantha v. State of Tamil Nadu, Appeal (crl.) 611–612 of 2013 SC decided on April 05, 2005 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/192852/ (last visited on January 12, 2018)

  70. Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (2008) 13 SCC 767

    Google Scholar 

  71. State of Tamil Nadu through CBI/SIT v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253

    Google Scholar 

  72. Beant Singh, The then Chief Minister of Punjab, was assassinated in a car bomb on 31 August 1995. DNA test helped in establishing identity of his defaced dead body

    Google Scholar 

  73. Missing Bodies. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/bodies.html (last visited on January 12, 2018)

  74. Ge J, Sun H et al. (2014) Future directions of forensic DNA databases. Croat Med J 55:163–166

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. (1987) 1 SCC 624

    Google Scholar 

  76. Vasu v. Santha (1975) Kerala Law Times p 533

    Google Scholar 

  77. Morris v. Davies (1837) 5 Cl. and Fin. 163

    Google Scholar 

  78. Jayprakash v. Nisha 2013 (3) Ker LJ 85

    Google Scholar 

  79. II (1991) DMC 499: Kerala High Court; 1991

    Google Scholar 

  80. AIR 2012 (Delhi) 151

    Google Scholar 

  81. Goswamy GK (2015) The genetic truth of surrogate parentage. Med Leg J 83:188–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Satpathy DP v. Dixit BP AIR 1999 SC 3348

    Google Scholar 

  83. (2001) 5 SCC 311

    Google Scholar 

  84. (2001) 5 SCC 311 para 10

    Google Scholar 

  85. 2000 Cri LJ 1208 (Ker)

    Google Scholar 

  86. 2003 (103) Delhi LT 165: AIR 2003 Del 446

    Google Scholar 

  87. 2002 (62) DRJ 851

    Google Scholar 

  88. (2005) 4 SCC 449

    Google Scholar 

  89. AIR 2003 SC 3450

    Google Scholar 

  90. (2010) 8 SCC 633

    Google Scholar 

  91. Bhawani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women (2005) 4 SCC 449 para 13

    Google Scholar 

  92. Kaur A v. Singh H (2003) 10 SCC 228; Kanchan Bedi v. Gurpreet Singh Bedi 2003 Rajdhani Law Reporter 229; Ramkanya Bai v. Bharatram (2009); and Ramkanya Bai v. Bharatram (2010) 1 SCC 85

    Google Scholar 

  93. AIR 2012 (Delhi) 151

    Google Scholar 

  94. (1997) 1 F.L.R. 360

    Google Scholar 

  95. (1972) AC 24

    Google Scholar 

  96. (2002) EWCA Civ 383

    Google Scholar 

  97. Rohit Shekhar v. Narayan Dutta Tiwari, IA No. 4720/2008 in CS (OS) 700/2008, In Delhi High Court, decided 23 December, 2010 (para 30) Available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/101695806/ (last visited on January 12, 2018)

  98. (2014) 2 SCC 576

    Google Scholar 

  99. (2014) 2 SCC 576 Para 27

    Google Scholar 

  100. (2015) 1 SCC 365; 2014 (12) SCALE 126

    Google Scholar 

  101. 2014 SCC Online P & H 4982

    Google Scholar 

  102. (2014) 2 SCC 576 Para 27

    Google Scholar 

  103. Goswami GK (2016) Assisted reproduction and conflicts in rights. Satyam Law International, New Delhi

    Google Scholar 

  104. Section 354C of Indian Penal Code, 1860

    Google Scholar 

  105. Section 354D of Indian Penal Code, 1860

    Google Scholar 

  106. Connors Edward, Lundregan Thomas, Miller Neal and Tom McEwen (1996) “The DNA “Wars” Are over”, excerpted from “Convicted by juries, exonerated by science” A case studies in the use of DNA Evidence to establish innocence after trial (National Institute of Justice)

    Google Scholar 

  107. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/case/failure/ (Last visited on January 12, 2018)

  108. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2013) 6 SCC 348; Rajeev Singh v. State of Bihar 2015 SCC OnLine 1336: (2016) CCR 70 (SC)

    Google Scholar 

  109. Setia H (2016) Evidentiary value of forensic reports in Indian courts. Res J Forensic Sci 4:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  110. Magalhaes T et al (2015) Biological evidence management for DNA analysis in cases of sexual assault. Sci World J Article Id 365674

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar, India

    G. K. Goswami

  2. Academy of Central Bureau of Investigation, Gaziabad, India

    G. K. Goswami

  3. Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat, Haryana, India

    Siddhartha Goswami

Authors
  1. G. K. Goswami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Siddhartha Goswami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. DNA Fingerprinting Unit, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India

    Hirak Ranjan Dash

  2. DNA Fingerprinting Unit, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh, India

    Pankaj Shrivastava

  3. Department of Biology and DNA Fingerprinting Unit, Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi, Delhi, India

    Braja Kishore Mohapatra

  4. Department of Life Science, National Institute of Technology, Rourkela, Odisha, India

    Surajit Das

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Goswami, G.K., Goswami, S. (2018). Three Decades of DNA Evidence: Judicial Perspective and Future Challenges in India. In: Dash, H., Shrivastava, P., Mohapatra, B., Das, S. (eds) DNA Fingerprinting: Advancements and Future Endeavors. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1583-1_11

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation