Science and Technology using the D.N.A. Profiling Test in Judicial System

Authors

  • Shivanand H. Lengati

Keywords:

DNA, constrained, witnesses, subsequently, justify

Abstract

In the field of forensic science, DNA analysis plays a crucial role in sexual assault cases involving physical contact or the exchange of bodily fluids. However, its effectiveness can be significantly constrained within the criminal justice system. This study discusses a specific case in which short tandem repeat DNA typing was utilized to charge a defendant with the sexual assault of a child. The state’s DNA technician examined the victim’s undergarments and reviewed the victim’s sexual assault nurse examination (SANE) report. Our independent evaluation of the state’s forensic laboratory work revealed that the samples used to establish a DNA match between the victim and the defendant, as presented by us in our capacity as expert witnesses, were in question. The trial judge’s decision
restricted what the jury could hear concerning our findings, and the defendant was ultimately found guilty. The defendant subsequently appealed the guilty verdict, based on the trial judge’s decision to limit the testimony of the defense’s expert witnesses. In accordance with established legal precedent, the appellate court upheld the conviction, asserting that a victim’s testimony alone, whether supported by corroborating forensic evidence or not, could justify a finding of guilt.

References

Kerala Law Times. 1991 (2) Page 190 Kunniraman vs. Manoj.

P.B.V. Ganesh vs. State of A.P. 2003 CRLJ 4508-A.P. 2003 CRLJ 4508-A.P.

K.V. Mahesh vs. State of Karnataka., Karnataka 771 CRLJ 1996.

Pantangi Balaram vs. Venkata Ganesh. 2003 Cr. L.J. (A.P.) 4508.

Thogorani @ K. Dayamanti vs. State 2004 Cr. L.J. 4003, Orissa.

Solia Muttu vs. State and another 2005 Cr. L.J, 31, Madras.

Nayab Singh vs. State of Rajasthan. 2007 Cr. L.J., Page 515 NOC [Chhattisgarh].

Sanjeev Nanada vs. State. 2007 Cr. L.J., Page 3786, Delhi.

Susheel Saharma vs. State 2007 (1) Crimes, Page 722, Delhi.

State through CBI vs. Santosh Kumar Singh]. 2007 Cr. L.J., Page 964, Delhi.

Noor Mohamed vs. State. 2007 Cr. L.J., 1515, Delhi.

State vs. Susheel Kumar. 2007 Cr. L.J., 4008, Delhi.

Rahuveer Desai vs. State. 2007 (1) AIR Bombay, Page 132.

Rakesh Bisht vs. CBI. 2007 Cr. L.J., 1530, Delhi.

Muttukuri Shivkumar alias Chitti Babu-vs.-Muttukuri Narayanamma & Others2008 Cr.L.J. (A.P), 4183.

2007 Cr. L.J., SC 298=2006 (4) Crimes SC 380 [Amrit Singh-vs.-State of Punjab].

2006 (3) Mad. 404 Ravichandran–vs.-Sub-inspector of Police.

2005 Cr.L.J., 3222 [Heera Singh-vs.-State].

2001, 5, SCC 311 Kamti Devi.

2005 Cr. L.J., 31 Mad. [Solaimuthu-vs.-State & another].

AIR 2001, SC 2226 [Kamti Devi].

2004 Cr. L.J. 4007 Qri. [Thogorani alias K. Dayamanti-vs.-State].

AIR 2009 (NOC), M.P., 1266 [Smt. Geetha Mishra 7 another –vs.-Krishna Mohan Mishra].

Published

2023-11-18

How to Cite

H. Lengati, S. . (2023). Science and Technology using the D.N.A. Profiling Test in Judicial System. Indian Journal of Health and Medical Law, 7(1), 13–20. Retrieved from https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/ijhml/article/view/1432