Judicial Awareness and Technical Literacy in Evaluating DNA Reports: A Study among Bhopal District Court Judges and Prosecutors

Abstract

The present study, “Judicial Awareness and Technical Literacy in Evaluating DNA Reports: A Study among Bhopal District Court Judges and Prosecutors,” examines the extent to which judicial officers, prosecutors, and defense lawyers comprehend and apply DNA-based forensic evidence in criminal trials. The research seeks to evaluate the level of scientific literacy, interpretational competence, and confidence in handling DNA profiling reports as admissible evidence under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023. A structured questionnaire was administered to 40 respondents, comprising 10 judges, 15 public prosecutors, and 15 defense lawyers of the District Court, Bhopal. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and ANOVA to identify variations in awareness and reliance levels across professional groups and years of experience. Findings indicate that 80% of judges, 73% of prosecutors, and 60% of defense lawyers considered DNA profiling a “highly reliable” form of scientific evidence. However, only 55% of respondents demonstrated adequate understanding of critical technical concepts such as allelic frequency, STR loci, and chain-of-custody procedures. ANOVA results revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) in interpretational confidence between judges and defense lawyers, highlighting disparities in technical familiarity. Moreover, 68% of participants supported the inclusion of forensic science modules in judicial and legal education programs. The study concludes that while acceptance of DNA evidence is generally high across Bhopal’s judicial community, technical literacy remains uneven. It recommends structured capacity-building initiatives, joint forensic–legal training workshops, and standardized interpretation guidelines to enhance evidentiary precision and promote scientifically informed judicial decision-making.

Introduction

The text examines the growing role of DNA profiling in India’s criminal justice system and evaluates judicial and legal professionals’ awareness, technical literacy, and interpretational capacity regarding DNA evidence. DNA profiling, recognized as one of the most accurate forensic tools, has transformed criminal investigations since its introduction, and Indian courts increasingly rely on it to support judicial reasoning. Legal provisions such as Section 45 of the Evidence Act, the BNSS 2023, and amendments to CrPC outline the framework for admissibility and collection of DNA samples, while landmark Supreme Court judgments have affirmed its probative value—emphasizing the need for proper chain-of-custody and scientific handling.

Despite its significance, effective use of DNA evidence depends heavily on judicial technical literacy. Many judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers lack adequate training in scientific concepts like STR loci, allelic frequency, or random match probability. Judicial academies in India offer limited forensic training, causing a persistent “translation gap” between scientific reports and courtroom interpretation. Forensic capacity is further constrained by under-resourced FSLs, procedural delays, and inconsistent laboratory standards. Legislative efforts such as the DNA Technology Regulation Bill 2019 aim to address regulatory and ethical concerns, but awareness among legal practitioners remains uneven.

The study conducted in the District Court, Bhopal empirically assesses this issue using a structured questionnaire administered to 40 respondents (judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers). Results show that general awareness of DNA evidence is high, but technical literacy is moderate and varies significantly across groups. Judges and prosecutors demonstrate better conceptual understanding and interpretational confidence than defense lawyers, though many still rely heavily on expert testimony rather than independent analysis of reports. Younger practitioners show higher adaptability to new technologies, while senior professionals possess stronger procedural knowledge. Across the board, respondents agree on the need for enhanced forensic training, standardized reporting formats, and closer collaboration with forensic experts.

Statistical analysis confirms significant differences in awareness and interpretational competence among professional groups. While most participants consider DNA profiling highly reliable, concerns persist regarding contamination, laboratory delays, and inconsistent presentation of expert findings. A positive correlation exists between professional experience and interpretational confidence, but not with scientific literacy.

Conclusion

The present study concludes that while the judiciary and legal practitioners in Bhopal District Court exhibit strong acceptance of DNA-based evidence, their level of technical literacy and interpretational accuracy remains uneven across professional groups. Judges and public prosecutors demonstrated higher awareness and confidence in evaluating DNA reports, whereas defense lawyers reflected comparatively lower comprehension of forensic terminology and statistical interpretation. This disparity, confirmed through ANOVA analysis, highlights the need for structured judicial–forensic collaboration. Despite limited technical expertise, participants widely acknowledged DNA profiling as one of the most reliable and objective forms of scientific evidence in modern criminal justice. However, overdependence on expert testimony, inconsistent laboratory reporting standards, and inadequate formal training constrain the judiciary’s ability to independently assess forensic reliability. These findings resonate with broader national and international studies emphasizing that judicial education in scientific reasoning is essential for fair adjudication. The study recommends the establishment of institutionalized capacity-building programs within judicial academies, inclusion of forensic interpretation modules in law curricula, and the creation of standardized DNA reporting formats to enhance transparency. Furthermore, closer cooperation between forensic scientists and the legal fraternity can help minimize procedural errors and misinterpretations. In essence, the research reaffirms that DNA evidence serves as a powerful instrument for justice only when coupled with informed judicial interpretation. Strengthening technical literacy and promoting evidence-based reasoning among legal professionals will not only improve conviction accuracy but also reinforce public trust in the scientific integrity of India’s judicial system. Conflict of Interest: Authors have no conflict of interest.

References

[1] Bhatia, R. (2021). Forensic evidence and the Indian judiciary. Indian Journal of Criminology, 49(2), 85–97. [2] Butler, J. M. (2020). Advanced topics in forensic DNA typing: Interpretation. Academic Press. [3] Chakraborty, S., Singh, A., & Sahu, M. (2020). Forensic infrastructure in India: Gaps and prospects. Indian Police Journal, 67(3), 55–68. [4] Choudhary, P. (2021). Evaluating expert testimony in Indian criminal trials. Journal of Forensic Science and Law, 11(2), 44–57. [5] Cole, S. A. (2015). A cautionary tale about judicial reliance on scientific evidence. Law & Society Review, 49(3), 803–834. [6] Edmond, G., Risinger, D., Saks, M. J., & Thompson, W. C. (2014). How can courts better assess scientific validity? Law, Probability and Risk, 13(2), 117–139. [7] Jobling, M. A., & Gill, P. (2004). Encoded evidence: DNA in forensic analysis. Nature Reviews Genetics, 5(10), 739–751. [8] Krimsky, S., & Simoncelli, T. (2011). Genetic justice: DNA data banks, criminal investigations, and civil liberties. Columbia University Press. [9] Kumar, R., & Sharma, N. (2021). Scientific evidence and judicial reasoning in India. Indian Bar Review, 48(1), 101–120. [10] Mehra, S. (2020). Interpreting probabilities in DNA reports: A judicial challenge. Forensic Science International, 312, 110330. [11] Menon, N. (2022). Constitutional implications of DNA databases in India. NUJS Law Review, 15(1), 65–83. [12] Ministry of Home Affairs. (2023). Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act No. 45 of 2023). Government of India. [13] Mnookin, J. L. (2010). The uncertain future of forensic science. Science, 327(5969), 649–650. [14] Nanda, B., & Tiwari, A. (2019). Misinterpretation of DNA evidence in Indian courts. Criminal Law Journal of India, 125(4), 231–243. [15] National Crime Records Bureau. (2022). Crime in India 2022: Statistics. Ministry of Home Affairs. [16] National Judicial Academy. (2022). Forensic science in judicial education: Training module. Bhopal. [17] Patel, R., & Rao, S. (2021). DNA evidence in Indian trial courts: Trends and challenges. Journal of Indian Law and Society, 12(1), 45–63. [18] PRS India. (2019). DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019: Bill Summary. [19] PRS India. (2023). Legislative brief: Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. [20] Singh, R. K. (2020). Privacy and genetic information under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Indian Law Journal on Science and Technology, 6(2), 90–104. [21] Butler, J. M. (2020). Advanced Topics in Forensic DNA Typing: Interpretation. Academic Press. [22] Edmond, G., Risinger, D., Saks, M. J., & Thompson, W. C. (2014). How can courts better assess scientific validity? Law, Probability and Risk, 13(2), 117–139.* [23] Cole, S. A. (2015). A cautionary tale about judicial reliance on scientific evidence. Law & Society Review, 49(3), 803–834. [24] Edmond, G., Risinger, D., Saks, M. J., & Thompson, W. C. (2014). How can courts better assess scientific validity? Law, Probability and Risk, 13(2), 117–139. [25] Kumar, R., & Sharma, N. (2021). Scientific evidence and judicial reasoning in India. Indian Bar Review, 48(1), 101–120. [26] Mehra, S. (2020). Interpreting probabilities in DNA reports: A judicial challenge. Forensic Science International, 312, 110330. [27] National Judicial Academy. (2022). Forensic science in judicial education: Training module. Bhopal.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Anjana Parmar, Rakesh Rai. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.