IJJRLS

Facebook Twitter Linkedin Instagram
Subscribe To Newsletter
Menu

DNA’S BLUEPRINT: SHAPING OUTCOMES IN DETERMINATION

Blogs No Comments11 Mins Read

INTRODUCTION

The scientific name for deoxyribonucleic acid is DNA. It is a fundamental genetic component found in every human cell. Red corpuscles lack it, whereas white corpuscles do. Human personality, behavior, and physical attributes are determined by DNA structure. The DNA sequences of different personalities differ. Every individual has a distinct DNA. The father of DNA profiling was ALEC IFFREYS. DNA analysis, sometimes referred to as DNA typing or DNA profiling, looks at DNA discovered in physical evidence, such as semen, blood, or hair, and assesses if it can be compared to samples of DNA from particular people. DNA testing is now often used as evidence in criminal prosecutions. Additionally, it is applied in civil disputes, especially when determining paternity of identity.

GENESIS OF DNA AS AN EPITOME OF BLUEPRINT 

Since there was no way to identify the real culprits in the past, DNA testing has become more important in legal terms. Thanks to this technology, tough criminals are more likely to be apprehended and innocent people receive justice. DNA is a type of blueprint that contains data relevant to genetic examination. By using props they leave behind, forensic evidence—such as DNA—helps identify the true offenders. It is only a type of biological clue indicative of a live organism. 

Identical twins are an exception to the rule that two people cannot have the same DNA. Tissues, blood, semen, hair, and any liquid that is removed from the body without any purpose of using it can all be used to gather DNA. The residual evidence will undergo testing and examination to ensure its accuracy in criminal investigations.

 

TYPES OF DNA TESTING PROCEDURES

There are two primary categories of testing methods for forensic matching and identification of individuals, notwithstanding the wide range of methodologies used. Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) testing and Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) testing are the terms for them. 

RELEVANCE OF DNA EVIDENCE

One molecule that is known to hold information about living things is called DNA. When it comes to establishing a point and providing accurate and trustworthy evidence in criminal cases, DNA is a crucial tool. This feature of contemporary technology aids in accurately describing the true nature of a crime, contributes significantly to the validity of criminal investigations, and ensures that the public receives fair justice. 

Sexual offences may be quickly investigated using DNA by comparing semen samples taken from the victim with samples from other people. This can help ensure that justice is served fairly and produce consistent results. By obtaining their blood or hair samples, it also aids in pregnancy and paternity identification. With the advent of forensic science and DNA, it would be simpler to find the precise evidence that proves the case’s innocence and to better serve the victim’s interests by holding the perpetrator accountable with pertinent evidence.

ADMISSIBILITY OF DNA IN INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM

The courts recognized DNA evidence for the first time in quite some time, back in 1985.Short pair rehashes (STR) are used in the polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based DNA profiling method used in India nowadays. The DNA test’s accuracy and speed have changed as a result of these techniques. These are very reliable in many countries. Drill Singh, known as the “father of DNA fingerprinting” in India, invented and participated in this first-ever invention in 1988. Even if the DNA test yields remarkable personality traits, its acceptance in court usually depends on its precise and suitable collection, preservation, and recording, all of which can be deemed sufficiently reliable to be used as evidence. There is currently no specific law in India that establishes guidelines for the courts and research agencies about the procedure to be followed in instances using DNA evidence. Furthermore, the Indian Proof Demonstration Act of 1872 and the Code of Criminal Procedure Act of 1973 include no special provisions for monitoring science, innovation, or quantifiable scientific-related matters in DNA strategy. Due to the lack of such preparations, the investigating official must deal with several hassles in order to obtain confirmations that show the accused person is culpable in the present.

LIMITATIONS OF DNA EVIDENCE

As every concept has its pros and cons, the same applies to DNA as well. Though DNA proves to be very crucial in proving the commission of an offence, on the same side, it has its limits as well, which have been explained below, such as: 

In most cases, forensic search is required, but not in every case. In some cases, the samples may become contaminated and not be present in an accurate manner, which provides fake results and cannot be relied upon, as the samples left behind unintentionally have not been sure whether they would be correct or not.

Another limitation of the DNA evidence is that the offence committed by the offender does not justify his intention just by performing a DNA test of the samples that he mistakenly left behind without knowing that these may go against him. Mens rea, an essential element of a crime, is missing and needs to be proved with the help of DNA evidence.

There are ample suspects that arise from DNA samples that do not provide reliable results. No conclusion can be drawn from DNA samples; a complete investigation is absolutely necessary.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY

In the Indian context, the right to privacy stems from both Article 21 of the Constitution and the Directive Principles of State Policy. India’s ratification of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is notable. 

In People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, it was decided that the right to privacy guaranteed by Article 21 could not be restricted unless it was done so in compliance with a legally established procedure—No one has the right to be protected by the law from arbitrary or unlawful interference with his family, home, or correspondence, or from unlawful attacks on his honor and reputation.

The right to privacy was systematically considered chronologically by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the well-known case of Sharda v. Dharmpal, which involved a DNA inquiry.

The right to privacy has evolved throughout time according to the Supreme Court. According to the Court in M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra, “we have no justification to import it, into a totally different fundamental right, by some process of strained construction, when the Constitution makers have thought fit not to subject such regulation to constitutional limitation by recognition of a fundamental right to privacy, analogous to the American Fourth Amendment.” This is the Court’s observation regarding search and seizure laws.

In a similar vein, the majority ruling in Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh stated that: “Asserting an individual’s movements is merely a method of invading their privacy; therefore, the attempt to ascertain the individual’s movements is not an infringement of fundamental right guaranteed under Part III.” 

Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh “Assuming that the fundamental rights explicitly guaranteed to a citizen have penumbral zones and that the right to privacy is itself a fundamental right that fundamental right must be subject to restriction on the basis of compelling public interest.”

A few instances that spring to mind are Sections 185, 202, 203, and 204 of the Motor Vehicle Act, Sections 53 and 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and Section 3 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code may also be cited in this connection. These laws’ legality may be upheld if they are challenged.

INVESTIGATION

Thanks to the Identification of Prisoners Act of 1920, the investigating officers are able to get the suspect’s finger and foot prints. Section 5 of the Act permits a magistrate to order the taking of a person’s measurements or photos. In this context, footprint and finger imprints are included in the measurement process. A magistrate is not, however, authorized by this Act to order someone to have an X-ray or ultrasonography taken if they consume something important that may be evidence of theft or another material needed for an investigation. Furthermore, the taking of the suspect’s body fluids—such as blood, urine, or semen—for DNA analysis is exempt from this Act.

In this regard, Sections 53, 53A, 311A, and 313 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure are pertinent. A medical professional may examine an apprehended individual upon request from a police officer. (1) When an individual is detained on suspicion of committing a crime of such kind that is purported to have been committed in a way that gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that an investigation into his person would produce evidence regarding the conduct of the crime. 

A registered medical professional acting at the request of a police officer’s not less than the rank of Sub-Inspector, as well as any other person acting in good faith with his assistance and direction, may lawfully examine the person who has been arrested to the extent that is reasonably necessary to gather information that may allow for the use of force that is reasonably necessary for that purpose. When a female is to be examined under this provision, only female certified medical practitioners may do the examination on her behalf or under their supervision. Explanation 16: In sections 53A, 54, and this one.

COURTS POWER

The authority of courts to Generally speaking, the court has considerable authority to order the parties to submit to medical examinations or provide a blood sample for a DNA test. However, the Hon. Supreme Court has ruled in one case that—

  • Where petitions are submitted for such prayers in order to have roving inquiry, the prayer for blood test cannot be considered; • Indian courts are not able to conduct blood tests on a regular basis;
  • To refute the presumption arising from section 112 of the Evidence Act, the husband must prove non-access, so establishing a strong prima facie case.
  •  Court needs to carefully consider the implications of ordering the blood test, including whether it will label the mother as unchaste and the kid as a bastard. Nobody may be forced to provide a blood sample for examination. The case of Sharda v. Dharam Pal addressed the issue of whether a divorcing party might be forced to undergo a medical examination in this respect. 
  •  A marital court has the authority to mandate a medical examination for an individual.
  • The Court’s issuance of such an order would not violate Article 21 of the Indian Constitution’s guarantee of personal liberty. But if the appellant has a solid case at first glance and the Court has enough evidence, it should use this authority.  

The Supreme Court ruled in Kanti Devi v. Poshi Ram that, notwithstanding DNA evidence’s scientific accuracy, it cannot be used to resolve paternity disputes due to public policy concerns. With this ruling, the Supreme Court pushed legislators to firmly uphold the antiquated, unscientific, inefficient, and biassed legal system. DNA fingerprinting was also used in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Amaramani Tripathi case to guarantee that Amarmani Tripathi, a former minister, received a life sentence for the murder of Madhumita Shukla. “When the poetess was discovered dead in Lucknow, she was six months pregnant. The foetus was maintained by the CBI, and a sample was submitted for DNA testing.” Reports from DNA tests have been used by the investigating agency to prove paternity.

In K. Venkataraman, J. Veeran v. Veeravarmalle, a minor is suing to establish her legal child status as the daughter of the petitioner, her mother, and the second respondent. The father was ordered by the court to take a DNA test. It is not a violation of his right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution and cannot be claimed to be undermining his fundamental rights. Mom having continued to live apart. The idea of making her submit to a DNA test doesn’t come up. Without testing the mother, a DNA test on the petitioner’s father only will establish the petitioner’s paternity. A media article from September 2009 claimed that DNA tampering had ruined the Aarushi Murder case. 

 

CONCLUSION

DNA testing is a powerful tool for the criminal justice system, but in civil disputes, our nation’s unique socioeconomic conditions and laws state that the test violates people’s basic dignity, particularly that of women and children. However, for the sake of justice, truth, and the dignity of the innocent as well as the openness of judicial administration, courts’ inherent authority in civil cases as stated in Sec. 151 C.P.C. 1908 should take precedence. DNA testing is a powerful tool for the criminal justice system, but in civil disputes, our nation’s unique socioeconomic conditions and laws state that the test violates people’s basic dignity, particularly that of women and children. However, for the sake of justice, truth, and the dignity of the innocent as well as the openness of judicial administration, courts’ inherent authority in civil cases as stated in Sec. 151 C.P.C. 1908 should take precedence.

Authored by- Sougata Singha, Amity University Kolkata

REFERENCE

 

Keep Reading

Add A Comment

Leave A Reply