How You are Trapped by False DNA Reports

Forensic Experts take advantage of the ignorance of the stakeholder in the Court System. The Defence Counsel, The Prosecutor, The Accused and even also the Judge are all ignorant and the Forensic Experts Appearing there, do know it well.

To show this we Study here a Court Case in Delhi

Criminal Appeal No. “CRL. A. 1728/2014” decided on 8^th December 2016

New inventions are made to achieve a higher and better end but soon they turn to be the tools of carnage.

Guillotine[1] was one such example in history which was considered as a symbol of ensuring the Equality but subsequently was seen as the greatest butcher’s knife of the human civilization.

In France, before the invention of the Guillotine, members of the nobility were beheaded with a sword or an axe, which often took two or more blows to kill the condemned. The condemned or their families would sometimes pay the executioner to ensure that the blade was sharp in order to achieve a quick and relatively painless death. Commoners were usually hanged, which could take many minutes. Then, during the period of French Revolution the Guillotine was invented in order to provide a a humane form of execution. The Guillotine was then adopted as the only method of Legal execution for all regardless of class thereby manifesting An Expression Of Equality among French citizens. This was then used as the only Civil Legal Execution Method in France until the abolition of the death penalty in 1981 (Pre-1981 penal code, article 12: “Any person sentenced to death shall be beheaded.”)

DNA profiling is a forensic technique in criminal investigations, comparing criminal suspects’ profiles to DNA evidence so as to assess the likelihood of their involvement in the crime[2], in parentage testing[3], to establish immigration eligibility etc.

In this article we will constrain our discussion to the field of user of DNA Profiling in the legal Courts in India. Everywhere in the world, people are wrongfully convicted of crimes which they had not committed. A few days back Allahabad High Court had acquitted one Vishnu Tiwari who had already undergone twenty years of imprisonment consequent to a false allegation of rape. The idea has been that the Forensic Evidence, would have a higher transparency and more reliability to serve the humanity facing in delayed trials before the jampacked Indian Courts. It sounds very logical and reasonable that with the help of even a single hair, a small drop of Body-Fluids or a bite-mark would give a detailed allelic profiling so that no innocent is implicated and no guilty is able to escape the punishment.

But the history speaks a different language and supports it with what has really happened. The most innocuous and promising invention of fire to cook food and make it more digestible was used to commit arsons. Inventions of chemical knowledge, inventions of electricity, inventions of nuclear energy and inventions of computer and internet they all followed the same trail. They were all invented to upgrade the human life but soon they were all reduced to the tools of misuser. The computer and internet like fire and wheel were invented to upgrade the human life. But in fact, the abuse of the Computer and the Internet has changed the definition and level of commission of crimes. Even the understanding of this concept of “Misuse” and “Abuse” has undergone a drastic change.

Pursuant to such traits of Human Behaviour the use of DNA Fingerprinting as Legal Evidence, also deserves a reconsideration. The way it is being used in the Indian Courts and a Limping Legal Framework under Section 293 CrPC is pushing the situation towards a Horrible Artificial Destiny of the accused. In conjunction with the administrative corruption, half cooked knowledge of the stake-holders, the unsensitized Judiciary[4] and resourceless poor strata of accused make a right mixture of variables which is sufficient to procure a ‘Legal Way of ensuring a Good Conviction Rate’.

A Conviction Rate is a political term and not Legal. Those protagonist of law who seek a Good Conviction Rate lack their commitment. A Conviction Rate depends on the joint effort of a number of legal institutions e.g. the Police, the Prosecution, the laboratories, the examinations of evidence, and an unbiased Judge. No single entity can alone ensure a Good Conviction Rate only on the ground that it is the last agency to write down the outcome. In such eventualities systemic legal distortions are bound to happen. It would be writing intellectually biased outcomes. Bias is a great evil and a staunch enemy of the Rule of Law. Away from the political slogans like Good Conviction Rate the Judicial outcomes should stick to the firm legal and scientific Grounds of its findings.

A few time back there was a case before the Delhi High Court. The name is avoided here because that would identify the parties. For learned readers a citation of the case is given. It was a Criminal Appeal No. “CRL. A. 1728/2014” decided on 8^th December 2016. As per judgment the facts were as follows:

“On 27.05.2011 at 8.40 am, an information was received in PS Okhla Industrial Area. The informant told about murder of his niece at Tehkhand Balmiki Mohalla, Gopal Ji Ka Makaan near Railway Line. The information was recorded as DD No. 2A. It was marked to ASI Ranpal. The IO reached at spot alongwith Ct. Sanjay. At 9.02 pm, another information was received about a lady having committed suicide at House No. 203, Balmiki Mohalla and it was recorded as DD No. 3A. Copy of it was also sent to ASI Ranpal. Dead body of one lady known as Smt. Poonam was found lying at House No. 13/2, Third Floor, Gupta Colony, Balmiki Mohalla, Tehkhand. Pieces of condom, one quarter bottle (half filled) on which golden border whisky was written, one tumbler and one bottle containing some water were found near the dead body. Apart from all this, one bottle of limca (half filled) an another water bottle were lying near western side wall of room. Two used condoms of pink colour were lying behind the doors. Sh. Dinesh Singh, brother of deceased met at spot.”

The Defence Counsel assailed the so called DNA Evidence. The Court recorded:

The learned counsel for the appellant urged that the trial court has based the conviction of the appellant on a DNA test of the condom allegedly found in the room of the deceased but failed to take into consideration the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein it has been stated that the semen of the appellant was forcibly taken by the police officials after his arrest, in one of the condoms sent for the DNA test. Further, learned counsel drew attention of this court to the fact that DNA profiling was conducted only upon one of the two condoms found at the spot even though they were collected from the same place at the same time sand sent to FSL at the same time. Further, there is nothing on record to suggest that the samples were kept under sanitary conditions at the police station.

There was a specific allegation / Legal contention on the part of the accused that the semen of the accused was taken forcibly and it was then planted on the Spot of Occurrence. The Court had dealt with the argument and gave its findings in the judgment:

To further substantiate her argument that the reports of a DNA test are scientifically accurate, the Additional Public Prosecutor relied upon Santosh Kumar Singh vs. State Through CBI reported in (2010) 9 SCC 747.
We feel that the trial court was not justified in rejecting the DNA report, as nothing adverse could be pointed out against the two experts who had submitted it. We must, therefore, accept the DNA report as being scientifically accurate and an exact science as held by this Court in Kamti Devi v. Poshi Ram [(2001) 5 SCC 311 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 892 : AIR 2001 SC 2226] . In arriving at its conclusions the trial court was also influenced by the fact that the semen swabs and slides and the blood samples of the appellant had not been kept in proper custody and had been tampered with, as already indicated above. We are of the opinion that the trial court was in error on this score. We, accordingly, endorse the conclusions of the High Court on Circumstance 9.”
After perusing the arguments adduced by the counsel for the parties, we can draw an inference that the case of the prosecution solely rests upon the medical/forensic evidence. Hence, it would be pertinent to discuss the FSL report placed on record. The relevant portion of the FSL report is as under:

“Forensic Sample received on 17.06.2011 Parcel 1a : One sealed plastic dibbi sealed with the seal of “PK” containing exhibit 1a.

Exhibit 1a : One damp foul smelling condom along with dirty yellowish putrefied liquid.

Parcel 1b : One sealed plastic dibbi sealed with the seal of “PK” containing exhibit 1b.

Exhibit 1b : One damp foul smelling condom along with dirty yellowish putrefied liquid.

Parcel 2 : One sealed plastic container with the seal of “MSL DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE AIIMS NEW DELHI” containing exhibit 2. Exhibit 2 : Foetus with umbilical cord and fleshy material.

Parcel 7 : One sealed plastic dibbi sealed with the seal of “MSL DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE AIIMS NEW DELHI” containing exhibit 7.

Exhibit 7 : Gauze cloth piece having brown stains described as gauze of accused Prem Singh.

Parcel 8 : One sealed plastic dibbi sealed with the seal of “MSL DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE AIIMS NEW DELHI” containing exhibit 8.

Exhibit 8 : Gauze cloth piece having few brown stains described as gauze of accused Anoop Singh.

DNA EXAMINATION xxxx DNA

profile was prepared for the exhibits 1b, 2, 7 and 8. However DNA profile could not be prepared for the exhibits 1a and 6 due to non amplification.

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION

The alleles as from the source of exhibit 7 (Gauze cloth piece of accused Prem Singh ) are accounted in the alleles as from the source of exhibit 1b (condom). However the alleles as from the source of exhibit 7 (Gauze cloth piece of accused Prem Singh) are not accounted in the alleles as from the source of exhibit 2 (foetus). The alleles as from the source of exhibit 8 (Gauze cloth piece of accused Anoop Singh) are not accounted in the alleles as from the source of exhibit 1b (condom) and exhibit 2 (foetus).

CONCLUSION The DNA profiling

(STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that the source of exhibit 7 (gauze cloth piece of accused Prem Singh) is responsible for the biological stains i.e. seminal fluid present on the source exhibit 1b (condom)”

In the light of the above, the testimony of PW-26 Ms. Shashi Bala, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Delhi (who conducted the forensic examination) assumes importance wherein she proved the results of the FSL report. PW-26 deposed as under:

“Upon examination, I came to the conclusion that the Alleles from the source of exhibit 7 i.e. gauze cloth piece of accused Prem Singh are accounted in the Alleles as from the source of Ex. 1b (condom), however, the Alleles as from the source of Ex. 7 (gauze cloth piece of accused Prem Singh) are not accounted in the Alleles as from the source of Ex. 2 (foetus). The Alleles as from the source of Ex. 8 (gauze cloth piece of accused Anoop Singh) are not accounted in the Alleles as from the source of Ex. 1b (condom) and Ex. 2 (foetus).

The DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on the exhibits provided is sufficient to conclude that the source of Ex. 7 is responsible for the biological stand i.e. seminal fluid present on the condom (1b).”

PW-26 Ms. Shashi Bala in her cross examination stated as under:

“xxxx At this time, I cannot tell the exact date when I examined said samples. It depends upon the condition of sample of semen that it source could be determined. It is not hard and fast rule that after 30 days of taking semen sample, its source cannot be determined. Vol: it depends upon the condition of that sample.”

However, it is noteworthy that the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stated as under:

“Q48 : It is in evidence against you that on 17.06.2011 Ms. Shashi Bala (PW-26) examined the exhibits sent to FSL and prepared a report Ex.PW 26/A in this regard. What do you have to say?
Ans. The condoms which were sent by the IO to the FSL in one of the condoms my semen was forcibly taken by the IO during my police custody in the police station. Hence, the report given by FSL is based on the condom planted by the IO.”

The accused was held guilty but the outcome of the matter was not so important as was the manner in which the outcome was delivered. A repeated reading of the judgment does not show a single word what did the Scientific Expert PW-26, Ms. Shashi Bala did in this case.

The report of the DNA Fingerprinting reads as follows:

DNA EXAMINATION xxxx DNA

profile was prepared for the exhibits 1b, 2, 7 and 8. However DNA profile could not be prepared for the exhibits 1a and 6 due to non amplification.

RESULTS OF EXAMINATION

CONCLUSION The DNA profiling

The DNA Fingerprinting Report states that the DNA Profile was prepared from one exhibit but it does not tell what was there in that profile. It is something like to say that a Sale-Deed was prepared but does not show the details of the property sold, the particulars of the Sale-Consideration, the date of execution of the Sale-Deed, the value of Stamp-Duty etc. Everything was being played in the dark.

16 DNA Markers

It is a scientific fact that in a human being there 23 pairs of chromosomes. Each chromosome carries a number of genes over it. there are almost twenty five thousand genes on these 46 chromosomes. Hence, each pair of chromosomes carries almost 1,000 genes over it (with inter-se variations). Out of these almost 25,000 points, called genes, over the chromosomes 16 particular genes found over fixed 16 locations, called loci, were earmarked by the scientists for study of the DNA in that regard.

During the DNA analysis it is examined which particular variant of gene (called Allele) is located at those 16 locations (or Loci) on the chromosomes. The combination of an Allele found at a particular locus (singular of Loci) or location is called a DNA Marker. This way there are 16 DNA Markers in a human DNA examination. Each marker is a combination of an Allele and its specific location. For example there is one DNA Marker D8S1179 which means the Allele (i.e. that variant of the gene) which is found the location number 1179 on the 8^th chromosome. Similarly, D19S433 DNA Marker would be for the Allele situated on the location number 433 on 19^th chromosome. Likewise vWA is an allele found on Chromosome 12 and is related to the blood clot formation. Overall, in India there 16 DNA Markers namely –

D8S1179, D21S11, D7S820, CSF1PO, D3S1358, TH01, D13S317, D13S317, D16S539, D2S1338, D19S433, vWA, TPOX, D18S51, AMELOGENIN, D5S818, FGA.

As per the Principle of Multiplication of Probabilities all of these 16 markers are be be matched completely. Very high level Courts in Delhi are doing something very alarming.

In a case FIR No. 17/2014 PS: Paharganj, Under/Section Under Section 376D / 395 / 397 /366 /342 /412 /506 /34 IPC and 25 Arms Act which was tried in the Sessions Court as Case ID 02401R0078922014, Sessions Case No. 35/14 and DOD on 10.06.2016 the Trial Court in Para 171, held:

On perusal of record, it is further revealed that PW 25 also deposed that he has also seen the report prepared by the Department of Forensic Medicine, University of Copenhagen, exhibited as Ex.PW 14/C (Colly) and he is of the opinion that on the broader aspect it may be observed that the same alleles has been indicated in certain loci like D3S1358, vWA, D16S539, D2S1338, D8S1179, D21S11, D18S51, D19S433, THO1, FGA and AMELOGENIN which are common in both reports i.e. report prepared by him after examination of the exhibits deposited by the Investigation Agency Ex.PW 25/A and report prepared at Copenhagen Ex.PW 14/C (Colly.)

And then it held:

“Laws can never be enforced unless fear supports them.”

And then lastly it held:

I am of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the convicts namely X, Y, … (names are withheld) are sentenced as under:

For offence punishable under section 376D IPC, the above named convicts are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of convicts natural life,

Is it a desperation of these authorities to heighten a conviction rate or the authorities are being swayed in common area of ignorance and arrogance or those convicts who had taken birth in an unfavourable combination of stars because a few of them were – Vagabond New Delhi Railway Station.

And there is quite a long list where such ‘Fear supported Laws’ have been shoved on the recipients of this Justice Delivery System.

In America 13 DNA Markers were used to uniquely identify a person but soon they realized that it might allow incorrect results and hence from January 1, 2017 they had raised this number of DNA Markers to 20[5]. The principle of multiplication of Probabilities make it more reliable. But here in, as in the above example accused are loaded in Blue Prison Vans merely on the basis of insufficient data of Markers. In the above case the Sessions Court convicted the accused on the basis of merely 10 markers. Still there was a 35 to 40% chances that the DNA did not belong to those poor vagabonds.

STRs and bp

After settling these 16 DNA Markers there are further details of the Alleles which their identification. There are four constituent blocks of DNA chains inside an Allele. These constituent blocks are A, T, C, G. These are also called Base-Pair or bp. These four bps in the form of repetitions, repeat in the molecular structure of a particular Allele. For example in an Allele, CATA bp repeats 4 times or 5 times or 6 times. These repeats may be more or less; may be consisting more or less bps e.g. AAT, CTG, ATC, ACCG. One such repeat of the bps is called STR – Short Tandem Repeats. On each single Alleles out of all 16 ones there will be a specific pattern of STRs.

On one particular Allele there may be 5 repetitions of constituent block CTA while on another there may be 9 repetitions of GATA. This is all just random and can be seen only after conducting Forensic Testing. There is a complete record of such readings or observations obtained during the DNA Fingerprinting. The accused as a matter of right is entitled to receive all such details simply because the prosecution will produce the DNA Fingerprinting Report as an evidence against the accused in proving allegation.

Some possible STRs would look like:

In the present case, under consideration both the DNA Fingerprinting Report and the judgment are silent why this important details was not provided to the accused so that the said scientific expert would have been cross examined properly. And what it looks that the Ld. Counsel for the accused was also not worried about this missing detailed material. If this was a consequence of ignorance on the part of the concerned stakeholders then it is really worrisome.

The judgment of the High Court had categorically observed:

In the light of the above, the testimony of PW-26 Ms. Shashi Bala, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Delhi (who conducted the forensic examination) assumes importance wherein she proved the results of the FSL report. PW-26 deposed as under:

Other Mandatory Steps

The detection of human semen from a Spot of Occurrence is an investigated fact. But to decide the authorship of that human semen is through a Forensic Testing. Although we have discussed the STR aspect of the DNA Fingerprinting yet prior to holding DNA Fingerprinting tests some other mandatory steps are also required to be taken. These steps are:

A Serological Examination to scientifically determine which one of the various Body-Fluids was detected on the spot?
If it was a Human Semen then what was the quantity of the total liquid because there are scientific findings as to how much a Human Being could ejaculate in one go?
If it was a Human Semen, then what was its pH value at the time of detection and examination
Whether the spermatozoa were found in the said Human Semen? What was their state of motility?
and other variables of spermatozoa in that alleged Human Semen?

In the judgment in hand, there is a Gestaltic Silence. Scientific Expert, the Public Prosecutor, the Defence Counsel, NGOs of this Democratic world, the Temples and the Deity all were silent and the condemned one was being taken to a Guillotine. What is being done? And further how it is being done? Was the child being cut at the navel with mathematical equality to meet the demands of two contesting mothers.

There is one particular thing called science where everything is connected inter-se logically. One step and its outcome are connected to the prior one and the later one both through a chain of logic and an objective verifiability. The accused, has a right to examine the verifiability of the so called DNA Fingerprinting Reports. But during the real trial the accused are being denied this right. The Courts are observing that the DNA Fingerprinting Report is proved because the Scientific Expert had opined so. No Logical or Reasonable scientific linkage is proved. If that Scientific Expert was such a blessed child of the Almighty then what was the need to call him in the Witness-Box.

The DNA Fingerprinting Report are being proved magically sans of logic and reason. They put their hands in bag bring out a pigeon. The Courts are believing them that his Hat had given birth to a pigeon. It is all magic devoid of all logic. Scientific Expert are doing it in a routine and the Courts are allowing them to do so in a routine. The accused are given a Majestic Display of Equality – you are sent to a Guillotine as your forerunner was sent and the same way your follower will also come there.

a. A Serological Examination to scientifically determine which one of the various Body-Fluids was detected.

In the first place if something is alleged to be a Body-Fluid of the accused then it must be subjected to Scientific Testings. There is a well developed series of Serological Examinations to determine which body fluid it was. There are two to three levels of such Scientific Testings to logically deduce beyond doubt that it was a particular Body-Fluid. Here neither the Scientific Expert nor the Prosecution had spoken a word on the need of such Serological Examination to be conducted. It looks that none was there to tell the Hon’ble Court that such a Serological Examination was necessary to prove that the substance in condom was a Human Semen. Could it not be a rice water or solution of starch or a semen of dog (which is abundantly available)?

First of all an alleged Human Semen spot was required to be first viewed in a specific light e.g. the Wood’s Lamp or UV light. This might give an indication that it could be a spot of Human Semen. Thereafter at the second stage a Presumptive Test is given. One such Presumptive Test is an Acid Phosphatase Test or a Brentamine Fast Blue Test. These Presumptive Tests may also give false positives. Therefore, to confirm the detection a Confirmatory Test is given at the last. One such Confirmatory Test is an RSID™-Semen. There are other RSID™ tests for other Body-Fluids.

It may chill the learned readers that it was only one of such innumerable cases pending trial and post trial. Who will be responsible for the destruction of accused persons because there is no law till this time to punish the ignorance of those who failed to address the Court on this point.

b. If it was a Human Semen then what was the quantity of the total liquid because there is scientific finding as to how much a Human Being could ejaculate in one go?

A human being can eject semen approximately 1.8 ml to 2.3 ml in one ejaculation. This quantity is further affected adversely depending upon the level of intoxication, age, medication and other similar variables. A tea spoon has a volume of around 5 ml.

In the present case under consideration, two condoms were found from Spot of Occurrence. How much quantity each of them contained was a “relevant” fact and also a “fact in issue” within the meaning of Section 3 Indian Evidence Act. The entire record is silent as to who was responsible for destroying that second condom. No legal action was taken against anyone because otherwise the Conviction Rate would fall down. No data was ever produced in the Court, no question was ever asked from any authority whether a human accused could have ejaculated such an immense quantity of semen enough to fill two condoms at a time.

And if the second one did not pertain to the accused then there would have been a simultaneous second author present in the room of Occurrence but he was fortunate enough to find favour of some authorities, like Babyto Devi aforementioned, and avoid participation in the holy process of Justice Dispensation.

c. If it was a Human Semen, then what was its pH value and Decoagulation Level at the time of detection and examination

The normal pH range of Human Semen is 7.20 to 7.80. But after ejaculation its chemical bonds start breaking and thereby releasing water molecule inside other material. This brings about two simultaneous changes i.e. increase in its pH value and decrease in coagulation. It becomes more alkaline and more liquified over a passage of time. By drawing a graph between time on x-axis and pH on y-axis or coagulability on y-axis in a second graph a time estimate can be made as when the ejaculation would have taken place.

As per facts given in judgment there were two important incidents which needed corroboration. The first was the point of time of death and the second was point of time of ejaculation of the author of that Human Semen. This had assumed a greater importance particularly when the accused himself had taken a stand that the Human Semen was subsequently planted on him after the arrest of the accused. This simple preparation of graphs would have revealed the truth.

Unfortunately, as per record, none had told the Court that such a simple step was scientifically possible.

d. Whether the spermatozoa were found in the said Human Semen? What was their state of motility?

The constitution of the Human Semen is very specific. It contains

46 to 80 percent fluid produced by the seminal vesicles
13 to 33 percent prostatic fluid
5 percent fluid from the testicles and epididymis
2-5 percent fluid from Bulbourethral and urethral glands

The percentage of sperm cells in the Human Semen is about 10% by volume. The spermatozoa are vanished on passage of time. After about 72 hours all spermatozoa become dead. But the Police had reached on the Spot of Occurrence within ah hour of the occurrence. Hence, it was not difficult to have Scientific Data on this point.

Similarly the motility of the spermatozoa is also a determining factor. Besides it, there are other constituents in the Human Semen e.g. fructose, White blood cells etc. which make the constitution of the Human Semen very specific and individual.

But in the name of the Forensic Evidence nothing was done in the case under consideration. Only the minimum ceremonial rites were performed.

The condemned one could know the price.

Are DNA Fingerprinting Reports are New Legal Guillotines

Does it not sound similar to that belief that the right of equality is being ensured through the execution by Guillotine. Here the right of a fair Trial is being ensured by saying or writing that the results of the DNA analysis were proved because the Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Delhi who conducted the forensic examination had proved the outcome of the DNA Fingerprinting.

Nobody was bothered to tell the Court, at least what a DNA Fingerprinting was in its meaning and import. None had explained it to the Court that there were 16 DNA Markers to be compared with the STR details. The specific details of STR repeats for each marker was to be objectively placed on record to see – what was that which had matched in DNA Analysis. Despite a complete DNA Fingerprinting Report and its proof before the Court nobody did ever know how many markers were traceable, how many markers could not be developed and those markers which were stated to be matching, in fact, what was matching in them?

What kind of proof is this? What it is going to achieve better than an egalitarian Equality through Guillotines? This kind of DNA Fingerprinting and this kind of Judicial outputs are new mutants of medieval Guillotines.

This is not what we wanted to achieve.

Something more is needed to be said.

Remember the Systemic Corruption

The Delhi High Court when it was deciding a case Crl. A. 510/2018 DOD 7 August, 2018 it made the following orders:

We have taken note of herein above the fact that the FSL report generated by Ms. L. Babyto Devi was found to be suspect in other cases as well. This position is recorded in our order dated 05.2018 which has been reproduced herein above. The present is another such case where the report of the FSL initially prepared vide Ex. CW-1/A has been found to be absolutely wrong. At this stage, we cannot predicate as to what were the reasons for such patently wrong report being furnished by the FSL. We may observe that recently we came across another matter, being Crl. A No. 484 / 2015 where, once again, the FSL report prepared by the same officer, namely, Ms. L. Babyto Devi has been found to be highly suspect and we have directed preparation of a fresh DNA report by the CFSL Delhi.

In Indian Judicial System the Courts do not exercise that power To Call Anything From Anywhere. The Courts are usually shown a limited monochromatic picture by the prosecuting agencies. Investigating agencies have almost unfettered powers in the Indian system to play courageous Charades[6]. The institutional sincerity and honesty is circumvented by the personal traits of the individuals, heading that institution. An institution is honest and upright to the extent, its head is honest and upright. The institutions like FSL are the centers of hope of millions of people but still the abrasions are there.

This is an example of the case which was caught. Some more instances which were not caught cannot be ruled out. Some more cases which are still playing their games can also not be ruled out.

The next and ultimate hope is the Justice Delivery System. But if the DNA Analysis Reports will be made like this and are further proved like this then it would be a march towards a next legal Guillotine in the formation.

@@@

The author can be contacted through this website.

[1] It would be better if the Ld. readers would google out “GUILLOTINE” and see its images, role and working in the history.

[2] Murphy, Erin (13 October 2017). “Forensic DNA Typing”. Annual Review of Criminology. 1: 497–515. doi:10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092127. ISSN 2572-4568.

[3] Petersen, K., J.. Handbook of Surveillance Technologies. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL. CRC Press, 2012. p815

[4] And not the “Insensitized” Judiciary

[5] https://www.fbi.gov/services/laboratory/biometric-analysis/codis/codis-and-ndis-fact-sheet

[6] नूरा कुश्ती