Forensic Science in Indian Criminal Law

History, Evolution and the Forensic Reforms Introduced by India's New Criminal Laws (BNS, BNSS & BSA, 2023)

A reference note compiled from official Government of India sources

1. Introduction

Forensic science, the application of scientific methods to the investigation of crime, has moved from being a peripheral, discretionary tool of Indian policing to a statutorily mandated pillar of criminal investigation. This shift culminated in 2023, when Parliament replaced India's three foundational criminal statutes: the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA), respectively. This document traces the history of forensic science administration in India, the legislative reform process leading up to 2023, and details the specific forensic-related changes introduced in the new laws, drawing on official Government of India sources.

2. Colonial and Early Institutional History

2.1 Colonial Era Foundations

Formal identification science in India began under British administration with anthropometric and fingerprint bureaus in the late 19th century, culminating in the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, a statute that authorised police officers and magistrates to take measurements, finger impressions and photographs of convicts and arrested persons, with mandatory destruction of records upon acquittal or discharge.

Evidence law itself was codified early through the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, drafted by Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, which governed the admissibility, relevancy and proof of facts, including expert opinion in Indian courts for over 150 years.

2.2 Post-Independence Build-Out of Forensic Infrastructure

India's central forensic science infrastructure developed gradually after Independence:

• The Central Forensic Science Laboratory network traces its earliest roots to the CID Scientific Section set up in Lahore in 1933, relocated after Partition and reconstituted as the Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab (1961), later becoming CFSL Chandigarh (1978).
• The Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D) was created in 1970 to modernise Indian policing and promote the use of science and technology in investigation, and administered the Central Forensic Science Laboratories (CFSLs) for over three decades.
• The Directorate of Forensic Science Services (DFSS) was carved out of BPR&D in 2002 by the Ministry of Home Affairs, on the recommendations of the National Human Rights Commission and the Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms, to render “high quality and credible forensic services” to the justice delivery system. DFSS now oversees Central Forensic Science Laboratories at Chandigarh, Kolkata, Hyderabad, Pune, Guwahati, Bhopal and New Delhi (the Delhi laboratory remains under the CBI).
• DNA profiling was introduced into Indian forensic casework around 1989, and has since become a central biological evidence technique in serious offences.
• The Gujarat Forensic Sciences University, established in 2008, was upgraded and recognised by an Act of Parliament as the National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU) in 2020, an Institution of National Importance under the Ministry of Home Affairs, dedicated to forensic science, investigation and criminology education, with campuses across India and abroad.

3. The Reform Process Leading to New Legislation

Calls to modernise India's colonial-era criminal statutes, and to place forensic evidence on a firmer statutory footing, grew over several decades:

• The Law Commission of India's 87th Report (1980) reviewed the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 and recommended modernisation, including procedural safeguards and expansion of permissible measurements.
• The Committee on Reforms of the Criminal Justice System (Justice V. S. Malimath Committee, 2003) recommended empowering magistrates to authorise collection of DNA, hair, saliva and semen samples, and generally strengthening the scientific basis of investigation.
• The Information Technology Act, 2000 first brought electronic records into the Evidence Act framework as secondary evidence (Section 65B), a provision later heavily litigated over certification requirements.
• The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 repealed the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920. It significantly widened the scope of “measurements” to include biometrics (fingerprints, palm prints, iris and retina scans), physical and biological samples, and behavioural attributes; expanded the category of persons from whom such data may be collected; lowered the rank of officer empowered to collect it; and created the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) as the central agency to store this data, retained for up to 75 years.
• The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill has been considered by Parliament (though not yet enacted as of the latest available record) as a further step toward a dedicated statutory framework for DNA evidence.

This reform trajectory fed directly into the drafting of the three new criminal codes, which were introduced in Lok Sabha in August 2023, notified on 25 December 2023, and brought into force on 1 July 2024.

4. The Three New Criminal Laws (2023)

All three laws were notified on 25 December 2023 and came into force on 1 July 2024, marking, according to the Ministry of Home Affairs, a shift away from colonial-era criminal law toward a modernised, technology-enabled and forensics-driven system of justice.

5. Forensic-Related Changes in the New Criminal Laws

5.1 Mandatory Forensic Visit to Crime Scenes — BNSS, Section 176(3)

The single most significant forensic reform is Section 176(3) of the BNSS. For any offence punishable with imprisonment of seven years or more, the officer in charge of a police station must ensure that a forensic expert visits the crime scene to collect evidence, and that the entire process is videographed on a mobile phone or other electronic device.

Under the earlier CrPC there was no statutory requirement of this kind; forensic attendance depended entirely on local police discretion and resource availability. Where a state lacks the necessary forensic facility, it is required to use the facility of another state until its own is developed. States have been given up to five years from notification to operationalise this provision.

5.2 Mandatory Videography of Search, Seizure and Crime Scene Forensics

Section 105 of the BNSS makes videography of search and seizure proceedings mandatory, addressing a gap in the old Section 100 CrPC framework, which had no audio-visual recording requirement. Videography of statements of victims of sexual offences has also been made compulsory, strengthening the evidentiary chain and reducing disputes over tampering or procedural irregularity.

5.3 Expanded Biometric and Sample Collection — BNSS, Section 349

Corresponding to Section 311A of the old CrPC, Section 349 of the BNSS significantly widens the categories of forensic samples a magistrate may order to be collected, now expressly including finger impressions, specimen signatures, handwriting and voice samples, and permits such orders even against a person who has not been arrested.

5.4 Expert Testimony and the Treatment of Forensic Reports — BNSS, Sections 329–330

Section 329 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 293 CrPC) continues the exemption of specified government scientific experts from having to appear personally in court, while empowering the government to expand the list of exempted experts, potentially opening the door to accredited private/digital forensic examiners.

Section 330 further provides that an expert need not be summoned to prove their report unless its genuineness is specifically disputed by a party, increasing efficiency but drawing criticism that unchallenged forensic reports may escape adversarial scrutiny.

5.5 Electronic and Digital Records as Primary Evidence — BSA, Sections 57 & 63

Under the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, 1872, electronic records were treated as secondary evidence and required certification under Section 65B. The BSA reclassifies electronic and digital records, including emails, server logs, WhatsApp messages, CCTV footage and cloud-stored data, as primary evidence.

The Section 63 certificate regime now requires two signatures: one from the person in charge of the device that produced the record, and one from a forensic expert, replacing the earlier single-signatory requirement under Section 65B(4) of the IEA.

The certificate must follow a statutorily prescribed schedule format, and the expert must state the hash value of the record and the algorithm used to derive it, supporting integrity verification and chain-of-custody documentation.

5.6 Expert Opinion Evidence — BSA, Section 39

Section 39 of the BSA (corresponding to Section 45 of the IEA) governs when the court may rely on the opinion of persons “specially skilled” in a relevant field of science, art, foreign law, or in identifying handwriting or finger impressions, and has been read to extend to digital forensic and other emerging expert domains.

5.7 Continuity with the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022

Although enacted separately from the three 2023 codes, the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 operates alongside them as part of the same forensic modernisation programme. It replaced the 1920 Act, widened the categories of biometric and biological data that may be collected from convicts, arrestees and persons under preventive detention, and created a central database maintained by the National Crime Records Bureau, with records retained for 75 years.

6. Implementation Measures

According to the Press Information Bureau, the Government of India has undertaken a nationwide capacity-building exercise to operationalise the forensic provisions of the new laws:

• The Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D) developed 13 training modules for police, prison, prosecution, judicial and forensic personnel, and adopted a “Training of Trainers” model delivered through the Central Academy for Police Training, Bhopal, and Central Detective Training Institutes at Kolkata, Hyderabad, Chandigarh, Jaipur, Ghaziabad and Bengaluru.
• 274 training courses, webinars and seminars have imparted training to over 43,000 officers and Master Trainers, while States/UTs have separately trained over 8.4 lakh officials, including police, prison, forensic, judicial and prosecution personnel.
• The iGOT Karmayogi Bharat portal has run dedicated online courses on BNS, BNSS and BSA for officials since February 2024.
• Under the National Forensic Infrastructure Enhancement Scheme (NFIES), new Central Forensic Science Laboratories have been approved for Kerala, Chhattisgarh (Raipur), Odisha (Khordha), Tamil Nadu (Chengalpattu), Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Jammu & Kashmir (Samba), alongside deployment of mobile forensic vans across the country to support crime-scene visits mandated under Section 176(3) BNSS.

Private Forensic Organisations and Judicial Scrutiny of Scientific Interrogation Techniques in India

Involvement of Private Forensic Organisations in Solving Criminal Cases

India's forensic infrastructure is primarily state-run: six Central Forensic Science Laboratories (CFSLs) function under the Directorate of Forensic Science Services, Ministry of Home Affairs, alongside State FSLs in each state.

Because government laboratories face heavy caseloads and long turnaround times, independent private forensic laboratories have emerged over the last two decades to supplement—not replace—government forensic capacity, particularly in urgent, sensitive or high-profile matters, and in civil/family matters that never reach the police at all.[1]

2.1 Truth Labs (Hyderabad) — India's First Independent Forensic Laboratory

Truth Labs was founded in October 2007 at Hyderabad by Dr K.P.C. Gandhi, a former Inspector General of Police and Director of the Andhra Pradesh Forensic Science Laboratory, along with a group of retired directors of Central and State FSLs, with the backing of former Chief Justices of India, former Supreme Court and High Court judges, and senior police and administrative officials.[2]

It subsequently expanded to Delhi (2009), Chennai (2010), and later Bangalore, Mumbai and Kolkata, and offers questioned-document examination, disputed fingerprint analysis, forensic DNA profiling, cyber and multimedia forensics, crime-scene investigation, polygraph/lie-detection studies, and corporate, insurance and financial-fraud investigation.[3]

Over roughly sixteen years of operation it has reportedly furnished reports in over 25,000–27,000 cases, its services being used by High Courts and subordinate courts in more than twenty states, investigating agencies such as the CBI, NIA and CRPF, over forty banks and twenty insurance companies, and several hundred government departments and PSUs, with its experts giving testimony that is admissible under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 293 Cr.P.C. because they are former heads of government FSLs.[4]

Truth Labs' founder has been publicly credited with forensic work in high-profile investigations such as the Nithari killings and other sensational cases referred to the Andhra Pradesh FSL during his tenure as its Director.[5]

2.2 Other Private Forensic Service Providers

Other private laboratories, such as SIFS India (New Delhi), similarly offer crime-scene investigation, questioned-document and handwriting analysis, and digital/cyber-crime investigation services to police, courts, lawyers and private clients, positioning themselves as a supplement to government FSL capacity.[6]

2.3 Nature and Limits of Private Forensic Involvement

• Private labs are typically approached directly by individuals, corporates, banks, insurers and law firms for matters that do not involve the police (e.g., paternity disputes, corporate fraud, matrimonial disputes), as well as by investigating agencies and courts in select cases.
• Admissibility of a private expert's opinion in Indian courts flows from Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 39, Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), which does not distinguish between government and private experts, provided the witness is shown to possess the requisite “special skill.”
• Private labs cannot substitute for a court- or police-ordered forensic examination in a criminal trial unless the investigating officer or court specifically refers the matter or the private report is proved through expert testimony under Section 293 Cr.P.C./equivalent BNSS provision.

3. Landmark Judgments on Narco-Analysis, Polygraph and Brain Mapping (BEAP)

3.1 Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2010) 7 SCC 263

This is the principal Indian authority on the constitutionality of narco-analysis, polygraph examination and the Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP or “brain mapping”) test.

Decided on 5 May 2010 by a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justices R.V. Raveendran and J.M. Panchal, the case arose from a batch of criminal appeals (Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004 and connected appeals) concerning the involuntary administration of these techniques during criminal investigation.[7]

The Court held that compulsorily subjecting a person—whether accused, suspect or witness—to narco-analysis, polygraph or BEAP tests amounts to “testimonial compulsion” and therefore violates the right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution, as well as the right to personal liberty and privacy under Article 21, since these tests involve substantial mental and physical intrusion and unreliable, involuntary revelations.[8]

The Court accordingly ruled that no such test may be administered without the free, informed consent of the subject, and even where consent is given, the guidelines earlier issued by the National Human Rights Commission (relating to legal representation, judicial oversight and medical safeguards) must be followed.

Further, any statement made during a voluntarily administered test does not by itself constitute a “confession”, and only information/material subsequently and independently discovered as a result (under Section 27 of the Evidence Act) can be treated as admissible.[9]

Selvi drew on the Court's earlier eleven-judge bench ruling in State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad (1961), which had held that purely physical evidence such as fingerprints, handwriting specimens or blood samples does not attract Article 20(3) because it is not “testimonial” in character, while treating narco-analysis and BEAP differently because they seek to extract communicative/testimonial content from the subject's mind.[10]

3.2 Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2019) 8 SCC 1

In this later three-judge bench decision (Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi with Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna), decided on 2 August 2019, the Supreme Court held that compelling an accused to give a voice sample for forensic comparison does not violate Article 20(3), since, like fingerprints or handwriting, a voice sample is treated as physical, non-testimonial evidence rather than a communication of personal knowledge.[11]

Finding that Sections 53, 53A and 311A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (which cover medical examination and specimen signatures/handwriting) did not expressly empower a Magistrate to order a voice sample, the Court used its power under Article 142 of the Constitution to fill this legislative gap and held that a Magistrate can direct an accused to furnish a voice sample even absent an explicit statutory provision, until Parliament enacts one.[12]

This ruling is frequently read alongside Selvi because it illustrates the dividing line the Court draws between:

(a) physical/identificatory evidence, permissible even under compulsion; and

(b) techniques such as narco-analysis and BEAP that probe the subject's mental processes and communicative faculties, which cannot be compelled.

3.3 Practical Use of Narco-Analysis in High-Profile Indian Investigations (Pre-Selvi)

Before the 2010 Selvi ruling restricted involuntary use of the technique, narco-analysis was reported to have been used by investigating agencies in a number of high-profile Indian cases, including the Aarushi Talwar murder case, the Nithari killings, the Telgi stamp-paper scam, and investigations connected with the Mumbai bomb blasts, illustrating both the investigative appeal of the technique and the controversy that led to Selvi.[13]

4. Conclusion

Private forensic organisations such as Truth Labs and similar laboratories have carved out a genuine, if supplementary, role in the Indian criminal justice ecosystem, easing the burden on overstretched government FSLs, offering faster turnaround for urgent cases, and extending forensic access to civil and personal disputes that never reach the police.

Their reports gain evidentiary value under Section 45 of the Evidence Act once proved through competent expert testimony, but they do not enjoy any special constitutional status.

Separately, and more fundamentally, the Supreme Court's decisions in Selvi v. State of Karnataka (2010) and Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) together define the constitutional boundary within which any forensic technique, private or governmental, must operate: purely physical evidence may be compelled, but any technique, such as narco-analysis, polygraph examination or brain mapping (BEAP), that seeks to extract testimonial content from an unwilling subject's mind cannot be administered without free and informed consent.

Sources Consulted

Primary Sources (Courts)

• Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004, Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 5 May 2010. Official copy: https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/36303.pdf
• Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2010 (7) SCC 263. Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/338008/
• Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2003 of 2012, Supreme Court of India, judgment dated 2 August 2019, (2019) 8 SCC 1. Indian Kanoon: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18061439/
• State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808 (referred to in Selvi, discussed via secondary commentary above).

Secondary / Open-Source Materials

• Truth Labs, “About Us”: https://www.truthlabs.org/about-us/
• Truth Labs, “FAQ”: https://www.truthlabs.org/faqs/
• “Meet The Andhra Pioneer Behind India's 1st Independent Forensic Investigation Lab,” The Better India (1 November 2018): https://thebetterindia.com/163531/kpc-gandhi-truth-labs-forensic-andhra/
• SIFS India, “Forensic Laboratory in India | Expert Services”: https://www.sifsindia.com/blog-details/forensic-laboratory-in-india-expert-services
• “Evidentiary value of Narco-Analysis and Brain Mapping in India vis-à-vis Smt. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010),” Legal Desire: https://legaldesire.com/evidentiary-value-of-narco-analysis-and-brain-mapping-in-india-vis-a-vis-smt-selvi-ors-v-state-of-karnataka-2010/

References

[1] Directorate of Forensic Science Services — About: http://dfs.nic.in/aboutDirectorate.html

[2] Ministry of Home Affairs — Directorate of Forensic Science (DFS): https://www.mha.gov.in/en/directorate of forensic science dfs

[3] National Forensic Sciences University: https://www.nfsu.mha.gov.in/

[4] Press Information Bureau — Implementation of BNS, BNSS and BSA: https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleseDetailm.aspx?PRID=2036414

[5] India Code — The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/20063

[6] Ministry of Home Affairs — Text of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (Gazette): https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2024 04/250882_english_01042024_0.pdf

[7] PRS Legislative Research — The Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023: https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the bharatiya sakshya bill 2023

[8] PRS Legislative Research — The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the bharatiya nagarik suraksha sanhita 2023

[9] PRS Legislative Research — The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022: https://prsindia.org/billtrack/the criminal procedure identification bill 2022

[10] PRS Legislative Research — Criminal Procedure (Identification) Rules, 2022: https://prsindia.org/billtrack/criminal procedure identification rules 2022

[11] Ministry of Home Affairs — Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022 (Gazette notification): https://www.mha.gov.in/sites/default/files/2022 11/CriminalPro_14112022[1].pdf

[12] Government of India (S3WAAS) — Paper on Electronic Evidence under BSA/BNSS: https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s3ec01a0ba2648acd23dc7a5829968ce53/uploads/2024/12/2024122766.pdf

Additional Footnotes

1. Truth Labs, “Frequently Asked Questions,” truthlabs.org, https://www.truthlabs.org/faqs/ (accessed 13 July 2026).
2. Truth Labs, “About Us,” truthlabs.org, https://www.truthlabs.org/about-us/ (accessed 13 July 2026).
3. Truth Labs, “About Us,” truthlabs.org, https://www.truthlabs.org/about-us/ (accessed 13 July 2026).
4. Truth Labs, “About Us” and “FAQ,” truthlabs.org, https://www.truthlabs.org/about-us/ and https://www.truthlabs.org/faqs/ (accessed 13 July 2026).
5. “Meet The Andhra Pioneer Behind India's 1st Independent Forensic Investigation Lab,” The Better India, 1 November 2018, https://thebetterindia.com/163531/kpc-gandhi-truth-labs-forensic-andhra/.
6. SIFS India, “Forensic Laboratory in India | Expert Services,” sifsindia.com, https://www.sifsindia.com/blog-details/forensic-laboratory-in-india-expert-services (accessed 13 July 2026).
7. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2004, judgment dated 5 May 2010; official text at https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/36303.pdf; also reported at Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/338008/.
8. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2010 (7) SCC 263; text at https://main.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/36303.pdf.
9. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2010 (7) SCC 263, paragraphs on NHRC guidelines and Section 27 Evidence Act; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/338008/.
10. State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad, AIR 1961 SC 1808, discussed in Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2010 (7) SCC 263.
11. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2003 of 2012, judgment dated 2 August 2019, (2019) 8 SCC 1; text at Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18061439/.
12. Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2019) 8 SCC 1; https://indiankanoon.org/doc/18061439/.
13. “Evidentiary value of Narco-Analysis and Brain Mapping in India vis-à-vis Smt. Selvi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2010),” Legal Desire, https://legaldesire.com/evidentiary-value-of-narco-analysis-and-brain-mapping-in-india-vis-a-vis-smt-selvi-ors-v-state-of-karnataka-2010/ (accessed 13 July 2026).