INFUSING PCAST METHODOLOGY IN SETTING PROBATIVE STANDARDS FOR EXAMINATION OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The PCAST methodology anchors the scientific validity of forensic evidence to ensure that what evidence enters the courtroom is not just persuasive but accurate enough to be relevant and admissible. Crime happens within the contours of closed doors; circumstantial evidence is tested on the cornerstone of cross examination, is only reliable link to establish culpability in criminal offences. The other important piece of evidence which is most relevant is forensic evidence, but whether its scientifically reliable is not is the next pertinent question to be asked to establish the culpability of offenders. In this scenario the Presidents’ Council Advice on Scientific Evidence and Technology (PCAST methodology) is a useful tool, which refers to the 2016 report by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology in the Unites States of America to establish the scientific rigour and admissibility of forensic evidence in criminal cases. In India, the guiding principle of criminal justice is that even if a thousand guilty individuals are acquitted, not a single innocent person should be wrongfully convicted. Hence, it’s essential that scientifically reliable forensic evidence should be presented in the court of law. The accuracy benchmark introduced by PCAST represents a landmark shift into forensic methodologies. The current state of literature shows an abundance of forensic techniques from fingerprint and bite-mark analysis to DNA profiling but lacks a scientifically validated framework for each kind of forensic evidence which this article lays the need to stress upon. The research relies on a doctrinal analysis of the PCAST report, drawing insights from comparative legal frameworks across jurisdictions and highlights data from secondary empirical studies and concludes by identifying critical gaps for future research to maintain accuracy around all forms of forensic evidence and the urgent need to evaluate and upgrade India’s forensic infrastructure, which remains under-equipped and often lacks uniform procedural standards. Thus, this study is both a call to action and a proposed blueprint for improving scientific reliability of forensic evidence, ensuring that justice is guided by science, not speculation.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Nisha v. State of Orissa, (1997) 8 S.C.C. 40 (India).
Kenneth M. Evans & Kirstin R. W. Matthews, Public Advocates, Private Advisors: The Autonomy, Function, and Influence of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 9 Frontiers Rsch. Metrics & Analytics 1455510 (2024).
Aarushi Murder: The Huge Cover-Up, NDTV (Dec. 4, 2012), https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/aarushi-murder-the-huge-cover-up-400850
Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2017) 6 S.C.C. 1 (India).
Mohd. Arbaz & Ors. v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine Del 4761 (India).
Paul L. Kirk, The Ontogeny of Criminalistics, in Crime Investigation: Physical Evidence and the Police Laboratory 3, 4–5 (John E. Edwards ed., 1953).
Michael J. Saks & Jonathan J. Koehler, The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science, 309 Science 892, 892–95 (2005).
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, Section 116 (India).
Nandlal Wasudeo Badwaik v. Lata Nandlal Badwaik, (2014) 2 S.C.C. 576 (India).
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand, (2011) 1 S.C.C. 359 (India).
Santosh Kumar Singh v. State Through CBI, (2010) 9 S.C.C. 747 (India).
Robert W. Taylor, The Role of Physical Evidence in Criminal Investigations, 35 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 201, 201–25 (1944).
Henry C. Lee & R. E. Gaensslen, Advances in Forensic Science: Physical Evidence and Criminal Investigation, in Modern Forensic Science: Techniques and Applications 112, 120–35 (Richard Saferstein ed., 2018).
Jonathan J. Koehler, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Scientific Validity of Feature Comparison Methods, 57 Santa Clara L. Rev. 367, 370–75 (2017)
Nicholas Scurich, David L. Faigman & Thomas D. Albright, Scientific Guidelines for Evaluating the Validity of Forensic Feature Comparison Methods, 120 Proc. Nat’l Acad. Sci. U.S.A. e2301843120 (2023).
Deepa Sethi, Indian Mental Healthcare Act, 2017: CBR Matrix for Inclusive Implementation, 42 Statute L. Rev. 88, 88–100 (2021).
Simon A. Cole, Epistemology of Forensic Science: Understanding Belief and Proof, in Forensic Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques 45, 50–62 (Stuart H. James & Jon J. Nordby eds., 2019).
Henry C. Lee & R. E. Gaensslen, Analysis of Physical Evidence: Linking Samples to Sources, in Modern Forensic Science: Techniques and Applications 150, 155–72 (Richard Saferstein ed., 2018).
Supra n. iii
Supra n. iv
Sunita V.S. Bandewar, Amita Pitre & Lakshmi Lingam, Five Years Post Nirbhaya: Critical Insights into the Status of Response to Sexual Assault, 3 Indian J. Med. Ethics 215, 215–21 (2018).
R. Chandrasekaran & P. Kumar, Forensic Evidence and Its Role in the Nirbhaya Case: Lessons for Indian Criminal Justice, 10 Indian J. Crim. L. 45, 45–60 (2019).
R. Natarajan & S. Kulkarni, Role of Forensic Laboratories in Ensuring Judicial Accuracy: A Case Study of the Pune Forensic Lab, 12 Indian J. Forensic Sci. 77, 77–88 (2020).
United States v. Jakobetz, 955 F.2d 786 (2d Cir. 1992).
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 INSC 444 (India).
Wayne D. A. Turner et al., Sources of Error in Forensic DNA Analysis: Contamination, Sample Mix-ups, and Reporting Mistakes, 23 Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 101, 101–10 (2016).
State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub, (2013) 4 S.C.C. 1 (India).
Richard Saferstein, Analysis of Mixed Biological Samples at Crime Scenes, in Forensic Science: From the Crime Scene to the Crime Lab 185, 190–205 (4th ed. 2018).
Sooraj v. State of Kerala, 2025 KER 28219 (Ker. H.C. Apr. 2, 2025).
Shirish B. Patel, When Forensic Science Reveals the Unnatural in “Natural” Deaths: Lessons from the Sooraj–Uthra Snake Bite Murder Case, 47 Crim. L. Forum 89, 92–98 (2022)
Miller v. State of California, 357 U.S. 184, 187 (1958); K. I. Vibhute, Principles of Criminal Justice in India 123–24 (2d ed. 2020)
Supra n. iii
Paul Roberts & Michael Stockdale, Expert Witness Competence and the Reliability of Forensic Evidence, in Forensic Science Evidence and Expert Witness Testimony: Reliability Through Reform? 105, 110–24 (Paul Roberts & Michael Stockdale eds., 2018)
John M. Butler, Forensic DNA Evidence: Interpretation and Contamination Risks in Casework, 12 Forensic Sci. Int. Genet. 124, 125–28 (2014).
Bruce Budowle & Raymond A. Swanson, Challenges in DNA Mixture Interpretation and Laboratory Contamination in Forensic Casework, 7 Forensic Sci. Rev. 45, 47–52 (2015).