 as we take the session forward. First of all, there was some meeting ID issue, but the way things keep on, people have logged in and as they say that it's better to try and fail rather than failing to try. And amongst us we have Justice K. Kanan, a former judge from Pajawadhyana High Court and those who have been connected with Beyond Law CLC know it very well that it was when we were on the baby footsteps, Justice Kanan took us forward with his insights and thereafter with the God's grace, Beyond Law CLC has been taking sessions on different perspectives. And the knowledge with Justice K. Kanan has, he has written a lot of books coupled with, he can take every subject with such an ease that you are sometimes odd with that fact. He can take sessions on our platform on reservation. He has taken on motor accidents claim problem matters, that is motor accident claims, then mediation and so on. And once we were, we were connecting with him, then he said that he's revisiting the forensic evidence. And therefore when we made a request to him, as usual, he was agreed because to share knowledge has always been his and we remember when we were appearing before him, the amount of cases he used to dispose, that was also amazing. And people were awestruck without taking much time, since we are already 10 minutes laced from beyond the schedule to the thing. I will ask sir to take things forward and we are allowing you the string sharing as desired by you. Yeah, thanks because it has been almost some eight, nine months before I connected to you actively and I'm so happy to be back. It really amazes me that you should be able to persist with such regular features of video and streaming. And you have followers, your persons watching what you're giving to them with such enthusiasm that shows a lot about your sincerity of purpose and the lawyer's own interest to know more. I literally resisted the temptation to be addressing because I thought there had been a little too many and they must all be available. And like in our Jagdwanda, the Supreme Court has said, you leave indelible footprints. If it's in the digital world, it's never forgotten. It's there to ever remain. So therefore, anyone will be at liberty to get back whatever subject they want, they'll be able to see. But I made an exception because I felt like coming back to Chandigarh. It has been such a long time. So this lockdown keeping us in our own respective homes. When I get homesick, because Chandigarh homesickness meant Chennai. If I'm in Chennai, if I'm homesick and only think of Chandigarh. So I thought this would be an occasion to connect again to persons who I know so well, persons who I like truly, like very much. And the court that has truly given me a wonderful experience during all my tenure there, how short it was. The subject of what I'm going to be talking is that which I was working on recently for the 27th edition. So therefore, I just thought I will take you through some of the features which struck me and in about a quarter of a minute. So I thought I'll fill you in with the matcha that I gathered and which I tried to put inside to have beginnings to what we understand forensic medicine and forensic science. Forensic is derived from the word forensic. It's a Latin word. It means a forum. In Rome, forum is the meeting place where the civil and legal matters were discussed by those with public responsibility. It refers to the application of science for the purpose of resolving legal disputes. It has many fields within it, operating. One will be DNA profiling, toxicology, ballistics, drug analysis, fingerprints, serology, digital forensics. All these matters which lead to detection of crimes and criminals is what we are seeing when we are looking at forensic science. Historically, many of these disciplines, they developed either as forensic application of laboratory-based scientific methods while some of them were developed as part of investigative processes by the police. Now, I've made a reference to the topic as forensic science and the new perspectives I said I'm working on that and therefore I will take you through some of those aspects which I thought are very relevant and which have come through. In the analysis and the new perspective, I got two perspectives from two principal sources. I'll share with you what they are. I suppose I'll be able to share the screen here. That should be possible. One is there you have. I'm sure you're able to see that. It was one of the reports to the President of the Forensic Science and Criminal Code in the President of the United States. It was in the year 2017. 2016 was prepared and then formally was there. It was presented at the time Obama was there. The idea was ensuring scientific validity of feature comparison methods. This was sent to the Executive Office of the President and this was sent by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. I think they have a beautiful method, a system in place where the scientific methods are brought and given before people. The idea is that the codes are the carriers or the dispensers of justice. They should be properly advised by the scientific community in order that they apply the right tools to give. It's another subject, it's another aspect which I wanted you to see is this. This also I'm presenting quickly of what I have in mind. The other book, Another Source, was this. I suppose you're able to see. This is Forensic DNA Analysis, a primer for codes. Look at that. You must have heard about the primer for school students. It is literally a primer for codes or the codes who has produced it. This has been produced by the Royal Society. This also I just ran you through because I wanted to have the first taste of what is there directly and we'll see who is presented it will be a matter of some interest for us. It's showed to you if you're able to see. That is Sir Venky Ramakrishnan. Sir Venky Ramakrishnan is the Nobel laureate, is knighted by the Queen and he is the president of the Royal Society. He has presented this to the codes. The idea is all the law codes in UK will have the benefit of this report, the primer of what should be acceptable. What is the scientific basis for understanding some of the important subjects and what we are going to be talking about. You have these two primer. This happened in the year 2017, 2018. They give you very fresh perspectives. In the way I would like to address, I would first like to tell you about something which is most certain that it can be relied on in any criminal investigation these days. Wherever there is a sexual offense or where the presence of a person whether it was there or not, the identity of the person, paternity, these are the issues. This is DNA evidence. DNA evidence therefore is something which is talked about more and more often than ever before. At a very fundamental level, I'm sure you would know. I'll just give you how we could look this again. Perhaps all of you know, but I can't just resist the temptation to let you see what I'm going to be doing, what I'm going to be talking about and therefore some bit of science. I'm sure this again you are able to see when we are talking about DNA evidence, we are talking about cutting the minutest cells in the body and it's available in all body fluids. You have therefore saliva, tear, sweat, semen. All these carry the DNA. The aspect about DNA is it's 99.9 percent is the same for everyone. It is that point not one person which is different. That's what is the individual. So when we talk about the individual characteristic of the DNA, we are talking about that point not one person which is different from others, which brings a real certainty to it. Now what is it that these two reports, the PCAST, the advisors to the president in USA and the Royal Society of what is with Venky Venkacharman giving a report to the Royal Society in turn to the courts and the courts which take it as primer. They have new perspectives to understanding DNA evidence. Just to have this in your background, the memory, you just see there is a yellow thing. You'll find a kind of a helix of what they say. There are two strands and then they run in opposite directions. They're connected by pairs of what they call as basis. Basis is A, T. You don't need to think adenine and thymine. This is A and T. You'll find each one of this kind of a ladder. It's a kind of a swirl ladder. Another is G and C, which is guanine and another is cytosine. So these are the things which are bound and how is it done? This is stuck to a sugar-phosphate backbone. This is the basis on which if you go through an analysis, this is what you ultimately get. You just have this in your back, in your back of mind. I'm not going to be troubling you with too much of science, don't worry. But when you're talking about forensic science, what is the basis, what concepts you're talking about, what is new about it is what I would want you to know. There are these, what we do in the important investigation, you try and see if there is some person, if there is a DNA which you need to be picking up, it'll be taken from the victim. If there is a sexual offense of what is there, her DNA will be taken if it's against whom or if there is a child, because sexual offenses mostly they are concerned and worried about the kinds against women and children. Therefore, children, it's gender-neutral when we talk about women, we are talking about obviously female sex. And that, what is stuck there, what is there, if there is blood or if a person has smoked a cigarette or something, that saliva, all these things leave the DNA. So therefore, the document, this becomes very important. And the American, to the American President, the recommendation they said on other things, the topic when they said forensic science and criminal code, they said the most important factor is gathering these details which are characteristic. And in the manner of gathering these details, what are all the problems which can take place, what will be the scientific method by doing it. They said when a DNA profile is obtained from one person, the interpretation of that DNA profile is normally straightforward when you're talking about just one of one person to another, one person, is he the person who did that and take his DNA, take that ladies and find out from whatever could have transmitted from one to another, some analysis or anything. Or if there was a person was using say a condom or something and he had lived there in the place, he will be literally leaving a visiting card. There is nothing else which is necessary. It will be such a sure proof of getting at the person that he was the person who had come and what was picked up from the scene. He will be seeing it immediately in a situation of what is the evidence which was collected there at the spot, whose DNA do we see. Is there a suspect, that suspect is that person's DNA, that is merely an issue of one plus one, there is no difficulty at all. It can provide, this DNA can provide exclusionary evidence. It can say this person was not. You can very easily identify from what you're able to pick up that this person was not. But then the problem could be situations where you don't have, supposing the person had used a condom where nothing is left there of someone not available there. There is no part of the body where she has, but he has left behind a cigarette or something, a cigarette stump or something. It may be possible to gather DNA from there. But there could be so many factors which can come in the way of our inability to gather the best details that peak on account of contamination and there could be errors that can occur in the DNA analysis process. The scientists can address specific issues through the processes of checks and control samples which are all associated. Now, this is in situations where there are mixed, where there are several complex and mixed DNA profiles. These days they use computer software and there are a range of software programs which can bring to a precision of the differences, the vital differences. The same data derived from the complex and mixed DNA profiles will be analyzed repetitively because one full genome runs to about three meters and then that can be composed in a human body. That is taken from out of that. You take a small piece and I said about 99.9 is the same. It is the point not one we are seeing as different. And again, these things, they go for mutations, there could be additions and deletions. So therefore, they could be same similar for the same for two persons. It can be misleading. So you need to make short tandem repeats, STR as they say it. They will make repeats to see with it because these four are why you show to you the four things which get connected. They will repeat with a short span about 15, 16 is an adequate data. Repeats they will take 16 to 25 is what is taken. And if they are able to see similarity within that, then the DNA of that person is surely taken. Now, I was telling you this DNA as to how it is taken and how it is collected. There is some interesting feature about that as well. And that will be with reference to how do you, what is the kind of thing which you do? What is it? What is the process which is undertaken and what is it that anyone does? How is it taken first? You will know when we are talking about the DNA profiling. We are talking about adoption of several techniques are possible. Each one of them, they are targeted different parts of DNA, some such as the STR profiling I said. Now that is the short tandem repeats of what I said. It is the most common feature of a DNA profiling. So, when in any case of what you are representing, somebody talks about DNA profiling and DNA profiling, we see what is the technique which is adopted will be the first question which you will ask. And then normally this STR profiling is what is taken for comparisons to shorter terms. And there could be some other method in situations where there is a sexual offense, where there is only a male and a female through the chromosomes. Chromosome have x, x is female, x, y is male. So, therefore, if any part in the chromosomal analysis of DNA, if you find y, then it means there is a man's syndrome which has come and therefore that connection, that y can be easily identified with the person who we suspect or if there is no specifically suspicious person, there could be a data, national data which is available there amongst the suspected persons or persons who have been already convicted or persons who are taken to prison. I will have surely something on that as well. This will be targeted, what they will do is to target the nuclear DNA in the chromosomes and then get how to take it. I will just show to you a small feature about that in a minute for you that is to have an idea about how small we are talking about, how, where is it picked up? How is that immediately identified? I will show to you now in a minute. We will just have a look at that as well. This is through just a minute. Allow me to give you the short to show to you. I present it again for you. Yeah, look at this. I hope you are able to see. Look at that. This is I am talking about where you take it. What is the method? What is the method which you are adopting to gather the DNA? I am giving you some background and then coming to legal issues of what surrounds this. This is a cell. I am taking the cursor around that. This is the cell. The body cells of what we have, we leave it in so many places. The skin, you lose the dough. Sir, could you just press the R class so that only the picture will come into being? Now the entire export PDF etc is showing on the screen. There is an image of the R class. Just press on that. Yeah, let the art where do I see? I am trying to figure out where I make it to go bigger. It should be on the edit because I have seen that on the top. Yeah, here. We should go to expand this. I am trying to figure out where. Maybe I have lost it. I have lost it. Also just forward because it is an image of an R class where you click it. There I have. Yeah, I have. There I have. It's fine. Yeah, now it's better. It's fine. It's better. Now you see there is a cell. I am taking the cursor around. The cell out of that, that's a nucleus. Within the cell, that is a nucleus. This nucleus, if you look at the chromosomal value of how you are taking it, if it's x and y, these chromosomes are already showed to you a helix. This is how it is. This goes like that. That is one method of extraction and a method. Another one, within the same thing in this cell, you have the mitochondria. This is the mitochondrial DNA. You take it out of this from each one of them they are taken. I am now showing to you within the blue portion. This is again from there, from this it's also taken. So these are various methods which you take depending on what you want to prove, depending on what is going to be established in a particular case. You will adopt the technique and that is what is done. In order that therefore you find that is the issue of somebody else who is involved. We know this is the person who is involved. Then we need to adopt that particular technology. Just a short while ago, one or two years back in the Supreme Court, the issue was one Ravi was the state of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court was referring to them. When you're reading a judgment like that, you must know what is it that they're talking about. The Supreme Court's passage says something like this. It was a case of a two-year-old child that was raped and what was the analysis which was necessary. It was contended there that YSTR analysis shown was not reliable. The Supreme Court was rejecting Y analysis. What is it that we are saying in the chromosome X and Y, it can be there only for a male. X and X is for a female. It was a two-year-old female child. They were trying to get at a particular analysis. I told you the chromosomal analysis of DNA will yield immediate result to identify a particular Y chromosome which ought to be there only on a male. Then you'll be able to analyze the whole of that DNA to see through repeats. You'll be able to find whether that is the person. So while saying that, the court said in cases of this was in the judgment in Draghi, they said in cases of sexual assault, DNA of the victim of the perpetrator are often missed. Obviously, there is a kind of a complex of two DNAs of two persons. They get missed there. And the traditional DNA analysis, the techniques like autosomal STR will not be possible. And YSTR method is the unique method which would isolate the male DNA by comparing the Y chromosome which is found only in males. So this is what they were saying. So when the Supreme Court makes an analysis like this, in the kind of sexual offense where we are seeing, what is the method of DNA which they should adopt, which will give the best and optimal results is what the court was seeing. And they said this is what will be done. Then they also referred to a kind of an STR where you hear also words like loci and things. What happens is when you have, like I said, a genome is a three meter long. We are taking a small sample out of all that when you are taking a small sample and then go for repeats. What is done is they see that there is a serious degradation could be due to extraordinary heat, poor sampling, gathering was not possible easily. The best of it was crept and taken and the conditions of storage were not appropriate. In that situation where the minimal traces are available, they say that the best method will be through the short-term repeats of what will be done, the autosomal STR, where they said in several cases they have found to identify a small unit and then go for research, what will give important results. Now, the point was what kind of report must be given because there is a serious chance of a degeneration of DNA. What do you do? What are all the places from where it is to be done? The laboratory examination of the submitted item to locate any body which is present, that will be the first thing which will be taken. Recovery and sampling of body fluid, these are the processes, evaluation of the collected sample, whether it is properly kept, is it possible to extract the best and the DNA extraction will be the next one. Then to also see how much DNA is present within the extracted sample, that's the quantification, how much worthwhile you can take out of that and then after doing that, that extraction, they will copy it, they will know, it's amplifying as what they call it, of the SDR regions, many times using a chemical process. What is the chemical process? We don't need to be worried about, there is a polymerase chain reaction, they call that PCR and they will separate the PCR products by size and they will then go for data interpretation. This is what happens as a typical situation. There was a case now in UK of a 21-year-old sex worker, she was stabbed to death and three local persons were picked up, the suspects were picked up and they were all imprisoned and then after a long time, when the case was going on and this conviction was also rendered, these three persons, they were all said to have joined and did that, they collected some evidence and what was, because they had some suspicion that this DNA matched. Here again, there was a report given by a scientist saying this DNA of this person in the next DNA, because there was a match. The case was reopened, this is the curious part of it and they said a DNA which they ran through a national database and they found it matched with a 14-year-old boy who at the time of the offense was two years old. This was a big surprise, a two-year child could not have done anything to this sex worker, the child could not have done, it was impossible. Now this two-year-old person, they were immediately looking for the members of his family, what are all the DNA for the person, what are the persons, they found is the boy's uncle, one, Jeffrey, it provided a complete bench, his DNA was taken, it provided a complete match, so he later confessed and they found a conviction as possible. Now there is an assumption that DNA provides a 100% match, but in reality what we must know, that is the fresh perspective which Vikas now says, it is probabilistic, you must, any scientist must say when you are interpreting something, when you are talking about a complex DNA, where there is mixed fluids, there are bound to be the separation and getting the particular person, where you are going in a wild search, you are not able to identify a particular person, there can be false negatives, it may seem same, but you may be committing a mistake because if there is not a proper analysis or where the repeats are not adequate, you may end up gathering the very same DNA which anyone else may have. I told you already 99.9 is the same for everyone, it is that point, not one which is different and you will have to be looking for that distinct aspects which will show out that individual. So now there was, if any report is ultimately made and Vikas said that to the Supreme Court and this is what again Venki Ramakrishna gives as a primer to the courts, that whenever there is a complex mixture, and if there is a scientist who affirms something, don't merely go with it, look for the scientific validity, they said there are three things which you have to do in every situation where whether a person has given the report correctly. Our assumption is that scientists will do, you would have done the correct thing and you have also under section 293, many of the scientific reports in CRPC, they say the report is given, forensic expert report is given, the evidence is not even necessary. So therefore, you have several situations where a report is given, the report is available, the person who carries out the actual scientific analysis is not even brought to court and the report is given to the court, court says now this report is taken on, exhibited as the prosecution document 10, 11, 12 or something like that and no evidence is necessary, then they would say this report says this and therefore we find it is the same DNA. That is a very dangerous thing because scientific analysis in matters given in DNA, what was the nature of sample which was taken, the purity of the sample, what is the statistical probability, what was the technique which had adopted, can it assure a purity of the sample which can reveal the exact results, all these are important and a doctor is bound or a person or a scientist who has worked on that then gives a report, must qualify this report and say how this has been prepared, without it, it's completely a waste, no purpose will be served and therefore PICAST said and the same thing is what you find elsewhere in the British primer as well, there needs to be a foundational validity. Now what do we understand by the foundational validity? I said there was a new perspective about the scientific research, they said whether a technique which you have adopted to extract and then carry out the analysis, whether it can give absolute and correct results, that should be the first one, then whether the same would be obtained if the technique is repeated, if I do it now tomorrow if I want to do it should give me the same result, that should be the second thing, therefore repetitive in character it should be, whether the same result would be obtained if someone else performed the same thing, so therefore it has to again be not dependent on a particular person preparing it, anyone else doing it must also secure the same result, therefore the first prerequisite is there should be a foundational validity, the second one ought to be that validity as applied, any analysis into validity as applied, it requires an analysis into whether the forensic examiner is capable of reliably applying the techniques because these are all things which we need to be worried about because these are all assumed, these are the scientists I know as a cross examiner I don't understand any of the science matters and if you had to say I didn't like science in my school and therefore I took the law, you are mistaken now, there is so much of science now because we already know even in digital issues, recording digital evidence of what is possible, the computer applications and so many things are what are happening there, you again saw some of the judgments about the cryptocurrency, this box chains, all these which talk about new technologies have so much of science there and therefore it is essential that we truly prime ourselves to follow a bit of science and understand what each one of these matters, so the validity application of the validity must be dependent on whether the examiner has reliably applied the technique in the particular way and accurately represents themselves, so in the report in fact the PICAST gives suggestion to the attorney general how the report must be there, if a scientist says it is 100% certain that this is the person who would have done, like what I showed to you about a case where a child if there is a certainty that is a kind of three persons were already convicted and then another person when they were trying to find out it was about a child and that kind of certainty cannot be there, you should say the closest of what is seen, what would seem to be this person may be possible, there are errors which is in any one of these reports that is also a error rate, what is the scope of that error, what is the percentage of error that possible, all that will have to be appropriately represented, because when we are talking about a scientific analysis and report we are seeing from section 45 of the evidence act, it says who is an expert, an expert must be a person who understands a particular branch of science and his own association must be that he is competent to perform what he claims that he has done, so this is session essential and in if there is ever a trial to happen or if there are papers which are seen, find out whether there is appropriate evidence given there, as lawyers we must see, if a doctor says or a scientist says I carried out, I collected the sample, the sample is given, this is the seal sample which we open from the police, we carried out the test, this is the report, the report is marked as P10 and the court says P10, all the contents are there therefore nothing is solicited, just hopeless evidence, the judge must ask if there is a young judge there, he will ask everything of what is contained there in the report must be read in the court and must be made a part of evidence, that is when we will know what is it that the scientist has done, what is it that the doctor has done, every doctor's report you have now again in 291 and 293 there are two different things CRP uses, one is a scientific report another is the doctor's report in 291 I think, so therefore they employ different expressions but as a generic expression 293 will take in also the doctors but then they need to state what is there in the report, it has to be elicited and brought out so that the judge understands what he has done, he has his scope for asking him how did you do this, what was the analysis, what is the error rate which was possible, what is the degree of probability which you would give, if you don't do and somebody says now it's 100% is correct this is what it is, then there is an issue, the cross examination cannot also be, you are only talking about probability doctor, therefore you are not certain that is what is possible, even in DMAs we can only talk about the probability and that probability what is in the given situation, you will have to see along with the other circumstantial evidence of what comes through and say whether that has been established, merely take this scientific report and say it's all 100% true, it won't happen at all, that is the new legal perspective which we will have to come to and understand and that is why I thought it is essential for us to know that the British courts and American courts are guided by a scientific community which say now even with reference to DNA analysis there has to be a caution employed and you will have to say what is probably acceptable to what extent it can be relayed on, that is one thing which I wanted to say. Another thing closely related to this DNA is the issue relating to the privacy, in the Pukkaswani they said a profiling of a person through his DNA is exceedingly private, that privacy is now a right which is legitimately recognized as a constitutional right under the article 21. So it happens that somebody is picked up and taken to the police station, they take a saliva, they scrap it there from the skin or they take saliva and then keep a DNA, they keep that to profile the person, so in the and take it in a, the person may not even know they were collecting that saliva or somebody must have, some doctor must have come to scrap the skin and then take DNA, but this was a point, this is again a recent case in 2019 where two persons who had been picked up and later left off after some time, they had been, they had taken samples for DNA, they came out and when no, they were not charged, they filed an application to the court saying they asked the police to give back whatever the thing and not to destroy what they had collected, they were not prepared to do that and they took it up to the matter went up to the European Commission and the European Commission said that DNA profiling is a matter of personal record, it's such an important thing, it affects privacy, you can't take it unless there is a person who is required to give his evidence because you have that again, this you have to see for any person who is suspected to have committed an offense, you can probably gather evidence, urine, blood samples, all that will be possible, it is available there in section 3, but this has to be again seen only of persons who are suspected and the person does not go to the next age, suspicion is not there, it is possible for him to even collect the application of law through what that's why it brings to us, if a person is ultimately acquitted or that is given a clean chit, it is possible for him to retrieve and seek for complete abasement of whatever evidence they have gathered, the possible issue of legitimacy is an important thing which we will see and recognize in our courts as well. Now it has also come to a stage where we say if DNA evidence is not collected, the Supreme Court has said in some cases that in this case DNA evidence is not collected, therefore it is not worthwhile, investigation has not properly happened, the same way even digital evidence, evidence of what is to be gathered, their cell phone, their phone records because even when I was a HR person in the railway claims, I said find out whether a person had cell phone, whether what is that tower, was he actually traveling and not all that information must be available, now the rules provide for that in the form itself, was he carrying a cell phone, what was the tower which was registered just before his death, all that we see to ensure that we bring an identity, in a judgment in Tomasso Bruno, was the state of UP, in a criminal appeal the Supreme Court said like this, non-production of CCTV footage, non-collection of call records, and the same details of mobile phones seized from the accused, they have all not been brought before us, therefore we don't think the prosecution can succeed, so therefore of an important digital evidence of what they need to collect, you must be looking for all those kind of details and if it is not produced, the Supreme Court says the best of evidence is not done, so therefore in the forensic details, investigation, you expect like I said DNA, all the digital evidence assumes a new significance which will be quite gathered and given is what the Supreme Court says, in yet another case, again this must have you must have known how the digital evidence is to be produced, what is the nature of proof it is to be rendered, this has come through an important judgment of the Supreme Court, where the Parmati Justice there I think was in the bench and it was Justice Rohinton, Ravinder Bhatt and Ramasubramanyam, there is a judgment, an elaborate judgment by Justice Rohinton, Ramasubramanyam gives the second opinion, which is interesting in some sense for me, because it says how Section 65B, we are simply reproducing what was there in UK, when they made a change, we have not gone through a change, that is the deficiency in the way it is drafted, we may not be able to, it is not as expansive as it should be, we still create some technical difficulties for production of digital evidence, we should ensure that we keep pace with technology and the acceptability of certain types of evidence must be there by legislative change, this has come through a judgment in Bandit Rao versus Kailash, then this was a 2020 March, April, I think somewhere during the COVID time it was the judgment announced, so these are aspects relating to some of these evidence of what you collect, there is one thing which has happened recently, this not perhaps two reasons, but it is from Chandigarh, it was some case which was before me at some point of time, I had therefore some interest to know what was happening, the constitutional duty among other things is to have a scientific temper and scientific temper just not the judges, the lawyers, the whole community must have, that is the constitutional duty now, in this case was a case of a person who the devotees claimed to be in a state of Samadhi, when the matter came before me, I said now the state of Samadhi, what is the where is the person, two Apollo doctors have certified him to have died, you are keeping him in a freezer, don't do that, take it, but then bury and cremate him, that's what you should do, I was gathering that kind of evidence, but the time it went off my hand later, just as Bedi, MMS Bedi was addressing the issue, that was a situation where the person claiming to be a son of that Swami of that Baba, he arrived there, he staked his claim to the body saying because that Baba left behind thousand road, what's the problem, the case is probably disposed of and the division bench and therefore making reference, it's not a case pending, it has been disposed of and therefore making an issue, I've made an issue about it in the latest book from what I have compiled and I've said when just Bedi said there is a, this is the person, the person the doctors have certified him to have died, so therefore he must be cremated, the police must help, it should be cremated, against this the devotees preferred an appeal, look at what has happened before the appellate, before the division bench, the argument was we have faith, our religious faith dictates us to believe that he is in a state of samadhi and therefore you cannot burn him, see it's perfectly possible for Lenin's body to be still retained, mummified, retained there in USA, some particular thing, our religious or non-religious understanding is a person who is dead and there are scientific methods of proving whether a person is dead or not, even the transplantation act, the human transplantation organs and tissues act, also provides for the stem death, the brain stem which is a dead, is a person is deemed to have died, you can even harvest the organs and then transplant it elsewhere is what is proven, therefore method of determining death is an important forensic exercise, a doctor must come and declare a person to be dead, how is it done by looking at the body temperature, the onset of the stiffness of the body what we say and there are several tools of examination, there are scientific tools of examination, even the pupil you would have noticed if there had been a death in the family the doctor first arrives and takes the pulse in his hand or then opens the eye and then puts a touch there to find whether the pupil is there or has become white, there are ever so many clear and scientific methods but here is our division bench in Punjab and Haryana saying people have faith that the man is alive, so therefore we will have to respect the belief and article 25 provides for that kind of a respect of belief, the division bench said something like this, they said the belief of the followers cannot be forcibly shattered by the state or the court, Samadhi as a concept is not alien to the Indian society having formed a part of many a folklore and mythology, it's all written on beautiful prose, it finds most if there is practitioners amongst yogis and necessities, it is something, so this is what it said and said this person is still alive, so I think this bizarre judgment must be set aside by the Supreme Court or to allow for the continence of like the situation like this that religious belief will dictate whether a person could be treated as dead or alive, the dangerous president, so but anyway they brought a constitutional flavor to what was otherwise simple scientific yes or no situation, the question before the court was could not have been, it trained the wrong issue, it trained the wrong question, when the question was whether the body is to be cremated because all legislation provided, all state local bodies legislation provide for burning, cremating or something, you can't keep it, that is a person my mother died, I love my mother so much, I want to keep the body in my house all the time, I can't do, the corporation has a right to insert the body, because it has serious health hazards, you don't keep a dead body at home, it will be teeming with so much of bacteria and dangerous stuff, so then it's just not that the life continuity, there's nothing more subtle than death that we cope with that, we take that into our consideration is what is important, the devotees they didn't have the courage to say the person is dead, he's in the state of Samadhi, he can be kept there, he'll be keeping himself alive, alive is not dead, but then they kept him in a freezer, they probably still have them in a freezer somewhere in Punjab and a bizarre judgment which says it as a religious belief and therefore we'll have, so therefore look at issues in forensic science, death and birth and death, death when it takes place is an important tool where there are clear matters of evidence as to how it is to be collected and how the scientific proof is rendered to that, one other aspect which has come to close attention through PCAST and other things, white mark evidence, do you remember in Mukesh versus Delhi, NCR Delhi, Mukesh and others, all persons have been hanged to death, it was the infamous Nirbaya case, among other evidence, I had the benefit of the entire evidence in my hand at the time when I was editing the book and the prosecutor was good enough to share with me all the materials and from Pune, there were signs of dentition, what the odontology of what they say, they'll be able to pick up material information about the white mark, see sexual offense could be committed even without a white mark in the way 376 has now been 375, the definition which has come, there may not be a penal penetration necessary at all, the absence of any violence is not an issue, the consent of how it was given, you will not presume consent clearly because there was an absence of injury and these are things which have taken place by virtue of the report of Burma commission and what could not be achieved through a case in Sakshi the previous couple of years earlier came through legislative changes, at the time the union was resisting, it will be too dangerous to be thinking of non-panel penetration as rape, that can't be such a serious thing, but then the change in law came through Nirbhaya, unfortunately we had a casualty through that bold woman and we had a change in law and there the court found the so-called scientific reports of white marks found there in the body to correspond to white marks, the definition of two or three of the accused persons and the court said it's a scientific analysis which has been carried out and it has been brought before us and we fully accept and this is the perfect evidence which has been brought and I think we should work, the Supreme Court said something like this, foreign sick odontology has established itself as an important and indispensable science and medical legal matters and expert evidence through various reports which have been utilized by the courts in the administration of justice, in the case in hand the report is wholly credible because matching of white marks with the tooth structure of the accused persons and there is no reason to view the same with any suspicion, this is what the Supreme Court said, completely unscientific wholly flawed all these lines must be taken as completely irrelevant incorrect and unscientific because it all happened sometime in the 80s in UK somebody picked up I said now the scientific validity must be there in before we rely on something, the empirical study must show that a given mark will be identified as something which is characteristic of a particular individual. What happened was it was seen in UK somebody nearly announced that the bite mark have very typical situations and they are very individual characteristics they have and the bite marks they found it can be easily related to one person later in two three years in 1987 itself not now 1987 somebody carried a case of survey for 300 persons the bite marks were all taken into some substance which could retain the mark and later examined out of 300 persons who are not examined 34 persons had similar bite marks which meant fairly a very high percentage we are talking about 300 if there are some 35 persons we are talking about 10 percent they have similarity if 300 there was uniqueness all of them must be independent each one 300 must have 300 distinct marks they were not so like that so now this was taken later in a case because this report came they said the bite marks have no independent there is no individual characteristic at all it completely flawed then it was a case where in USA somebody one Stephen Cheney had been convicted then they brought this and they said that this bite mark is the only mark which is taken as the basis this is not mine because bite marks have various funny situations and depends on because we are talking about even if it's a human tooth or not that itself is difficult is what the scientists say the latest thing again they say not understanding the fact that it's as high as 10 to 20 percent there could be similarity they also found that you the skin is could be in a stage of violence it could be stretched it can be contracted it is not an ideal situation where a person could have placed his teeth somewhere in some of the private parts or inside of the thigh or probably on the breast all these things could be in a state of some kind of resistance or something you can't get it correctly in an ideal situation and some persons can have swelling in such ways that it is not even possible the size or the impressions cannot be true is what they said so it came to such a stage where the Texas in that the court of appeals they said it's a junk law there is nothing like that then there was an innocent project was what the prosecution several states they started wherever they found bite marks as the evidence and a conviction rendered on that basis they set aside all of them and they went on reversing the advance and granted acquittance and that is now the stage now in peak as recommendations in the precedent they've said bite mark evidence is such a hopeless evidence it must be discarded only so therefore be aware if there is any such evidence which is brought in you should be knowing that the whole scientific community is now rejecting the Supreme Court judgment in Mukesh which it places and this odontology as a science which has proven is completely wrong it is not proven on the other hand the scientific community is rejected by bite marks as completely wholly irrelevant so that is something which you'll know but now recently I found in a 2020 article there was a person some persons who from this is one Kirti Garb Rohan Sachdev Gulma Singh these are persons in 2000 they have given a scientific report in Indian Journal of forensic medicine and toxicology and they've said tongue has different very peculiar characters that I thought was extraordinarily surprising while you find the tooth there is nothing see even in BNA CM is twins the same sex twins will have the same DNA structure but even for twins they say if it's tongue it is it will not be the same tongues carry a distinct feature where will you have that kind of evidence where will you have that impression of tongue in any situation could be difficult but then where you find whether a person's identity you're looking for a person's identity whether that is the person it's a human being whether that is the person that died from photographic images of tongue somewhere of a person speaking and I'm saying something how did I do or something like that and a photograph is taken go close in on that take those impressions and then find out later with that person whether it is the same person or not it is possible to say that is what Kirti Gag and others they've said the distinctiveness of the tongue print there are no two tongues are the same the tongue of the identical twins are also not the same the tongue provides both static and dynamic features for authentication is what they say in a recent report so that I thought was evidently surprising something which you have not known one more aspect which has come about is virtual postmortem I'll be concluding now virtual postmortem is again you don't need to open the body it's possible for you to have but it has been done in some place the UK still carries out that will be a matter of the future where you don't lift the body at all it can be possible for you to weigh the weight of every organ inside through a scan and that can take place over a period of time that could be one I'll close with the one two important things of what I but fascinated me one was a covid the doctor person who was affected by covid and he died his body was interned and somewhere away because locally people were objecting that was last year in May so people had very serious apprehension there are not too many deaths at the time and when they were happening people were scared where the body could be buried and things locally in the place where I live that the doctor happened to be living somewhere very close to my place in less than two kilometers from my place and the doctor's body was not allowed to be buried in the cemetery near this house they took it far away out of the city and the body was buried the wife was terribly concerned she was upset that even my husband's body cannot be carried or buried here she filed an application before the high court wanted the body to be exhumed and then brought back and interned again in the place where their family cemetery where the several of the family members have been interned the court ordered the exhumation and then directed it to be buried they look for no law anywhere across the world except in Ireland where they permitted exhumation of the body to be possible for religious reasons also so how is it important in a forensic study we read the situation when a body can be exhumed and we also see where there is a suspicion whether the person had been murdered or not could be a thing even without a murder a person who had died due to an ailment who could also be a circumstance for exhumation this is the subject of an appeal before the bench bench has stated but this is something which is new and this is Anandi Simon was the party this is state of Tamil Nadu and there was one more case which was the reason was a case of death of a person and the use of the weapon was surprisingly a dessert spoon very small I'll show to you just this I'll share with you the photograph you have a look at this you'll be astonished and this has been brought in a magazine recently are you able to see that is the body and are you able to see that picture yeah so this is all that I'm showing to the person the yellow arrow that is a small slit that's all there was no other injury in any part of the body there was the spoon had been used and the man died whether death can happen suddenly the sudden death is an aspect of importance in forensic medicine could it result in death this was a spoon cutting directly into the brain and can cause instantaneous death what they said no loss of big loss of blood a small weapon it just inserted above this a small slit there went over the case reported from some place in North India the case is still in progress but death can suddenly ensue so in a subject of what can constitute sudden death whether there should be a murder or unexpected you could it come under 304 part a these are all issues which can come later but that there could be a sudden death in a situation by use of a spoon was what was brought out through this case so my attempt has been with that I will conclude to say what interests me now to what has happened in some branches what books have brought about new studies how do you assess probabilities in the manner when a report is made how do you expect the scientists to come to require to come to go to say his own scientific knowledge I said in DNA or what is such a sure science there are still issues of probability where you'll have to properly explain and then give the world opinion keys so I'm also said about the digital evidence the importance of what the courts are now looking look for was it possible to follow it up at the time was there the email what was there was there a cctv all that are going to be important pieces of evidence which we would never have contemplated sometime back which would be all vital pieces of evidence now what evidence scientific is also essential for us to understand of so much of what the court says sometime I'm now standing outside the legal system I'm not a sitting judge to be worried that the judgment of the Supreme Court is correct or not I'm now fiercely critical about things because I expect changes to happen and so that the science and correct scientific facts are brought before court so that the correct law is also set so this has been my pleasure to present to you what I've learned myself in the recent after my last edition from 2017 to 2019 2019 2021 what I've now recently seen is what I've given to you as fresh perspectives thank you very much for this opportunity to share my views if there is any question which you'd like to ask I'm sure I'll be able to respond to the extent this is possible thank you so you have taken to the entire new perspectives talking of that Ashutosh Maharaj judgment thereafter if you re-click Justice Mahesh Dhovar and Justice Shekha Dhawan had reversed that judgment of Justice MMS Bedi on Ashutosh Maharaj where they said that it's a case of a personal religious belief you can't say that you have to go for this so meanwhile one question has only come so far that is by Ganesh Tiwari I've also watched it on the whether there is on something on the YouTube so that's a quite long question if you could just guess through that I think that would make more easy for you Ganesh Tiwari Ganesh Tiwari says if for example Mr. A make a mold of kind substances ice moan that icicle form but in shape of knife he stored water in it yeah these are all these are all things which we ask as puzzles from intellectual games we play and where there is no evidence nothing was there the person made a knife out of ice and then the substance was not there a person can kill so there was no no proof of well probably this is one of the novels if I don't know whether it is as old as prints are old now and I'm not too sure whether this is an actual example but what is the question let us go therefore what is it there for you if you start B with that ice knife shape he penetrates in stomach but somehow it does not reach the inner part of the abdominal cavity of that person but he got grievous hurt in stomach and Mr. A left Mr. B in confinement blood loss from stomach so what happened later for in second investigation they will find the evidence as knife is of solid water form and it has now melted so what actually ultimately if you find I told you that probably I gave you a kitchen knife not even a knife is a desert spoon the smallest spoon of all the spoons makes a small slit of the person dies so therefore that there is not a weapon on which is available it's not the thing if there is any other evidence which is possible where you can explain why is not the night where there is a knife cut injury incised injury where is the material object which somebody is asking the inability of the prosecution to produce the material object cannot obtain any significance or it can be scientifically explained the person can make a knife out of ice ice which will melt but which can still pierce and kill a person so therefore we'll be looking for kind of other evidence and the forensic evidence will be a scientific evidence to say that they can be a sharp weapon like an ice can be made as a weapon to kill a person is what it is possible is what is what will be the ultimate evidence the scientific evidence which can place so I don't see that as any major challenge it's more a fun puzzle which is talked about in movies in some of the books that's ours I think it was a movie I'm also reflecting so one says would you please explain this swab and smear testing once again explain what swab and smear test once again on a please note yeah see we take a swab is when you have cotton and then it's a gauze piece which is taken on that and then they press it against the best the usually the most moist place apart from the tongue and the internal portion they take it there and the cheek is internal and then take a swab the same way there is a sexual offense committed and where you try to examine whether there has been any penetration whether there is any spermatozoa the swabs are taken in a fashion which can absorb what is contained there any fluid when we talk about swabs we talk about fluids or any substance which can be scraped and then put like in a place so therefore a normal method of gathering is through application of instruments and imprint it on a swab take it to a lab and then examine it under a microscope or other gadgetry which will help enlarge things and identify for instance if it is saliva if it is semen what is innate what have we taken are we talking about a substance which is organic or inorganic if it is organic is it a body fluid or could it be is it sweat or have we taken it from a door handle or something like that where you still can take a print of how it is how the impression is there by say sweat somebody could have see there are cases where there was a case in UK again and this was about a lady who had been raped and murdered and they found a sample which coincided with a person who was living 200 kilometers away he had not come to this place at all so therefore how did he so he was picked up ultimately and they found alibi possible through some other source and therefore he was acquitted but they later found how it how it had happened that in an accident which had taken place in his place he had given his blood sample and it was recorded brought over to London later and for examination it was cleaned and then this this examination was done for this lady and that glass trace was still retaining the DNA now we are taking about when we're talking about this vats we take it in sterile conditions ensure that there is a purity of the sample which we take it is much better than what we take as traces I said there could be several difficulties even trace evidence of how certain types of extraction of DNA is possible I said therefore there are several techniques of extraction say various methods of extraction and of that depending on the quality of the sample we'll be able to carry that particular method of DNA so swabs is that which you make possible an absorption of a sample and then use it in the lab that is where you scrape and what is the other one? Spiritist. Spirit again see what is blood for instance then when we talk about blood we talk about the spear evidence but what do you you take blood you must have seen there even in the labs or what is one drop is let on to a small plate of glass and then it is taken over another and then they press it and then take it away then you have full of that it smeared all over the glass surface and then examined under a magnifying glass you'll be able to see what all it contains the constituents of that will be examined so therefore these are methods of taking samples depending on the nature of fluid as we have evidence of what you again cement spear they've also where there is an adequacy of the sample where you need to scrape and take where you are only looking for dried issues see hair for instance is an important carrier of DNA air with that if it is also some dried cement there something like that then you have a complex situation of the DNA of the air of say of the pubis to be seen attached to a cement which can be extracted and then seen so these aren't to be again seen depending on the quantity the quality of the sample which is available they'll be able to extract it take it as a smear or keep it in as bad and then take it so these are two different types of smears was there are two different types of extraction of the actual material for conducting your investigation that's what we say is kindly refer a book on forensic so you can tell about your book on the forensics yeah I think there was a talk there were two other persons with whom we were conducting a workshop for doctors in Delhi the Delhi High Court carried that workshop for about for all the doctors in in nine districts and somewhere close to in each we had six workshops and in each workshop they used to have ideally we wanted they're not more than 25 but used to have to peer 60 so therefore and we had occasion to meet with all of them there was one thing which was stated there by there were two other persons was one Jagdish Reddy who is the principal of where the college of forensic science another was Padma Desthali of Seahat from Bombay so these were the two other persons one is a scientist another is a forensic expert another me a person trained in law so we did the workshop and she was saying Dr. Why are you asking about the book which you have written? That's what I'm saying I'm saying therefore he was saying if anything must change if any law of character statement must be seen people look to Modi's jurisprudence so sir there are so many things which are flawed so we were sitting and then examining every aspect and I've tried to update it with as much of science source as possible so I have been fortunate to be associated with the book which has been worked by so many persons in the past before me and I've been able to secure the best of assistance to make it fine only Chandigarh you will find in the book which the last edition the 25th edition carries so many important facial reconstruction matters from Chandigarh labs so therefore I had the director of CFSL from Chandigarh giving me and also the head of the department foreign science from PGM I had been associated with the four other doctors and head of the department pathology from the government medical college there so many doctors did the work I had no source of gathering so much of information otherwise than through them so then a lot of media is given if honestly you must ask what is the best book there's no doubt that Maurice jurisprudence is the best book on forensic science I have no doubt about that and there are exclusive materials on forensic science and not so much of law there how to be conducting what what is that hydration to be done what fluid is to be seen how is the sample to be taken is only for forensic 100% forensic is Dr. Reddy is there is some book which is written Jagdish Reddy's name you can google his name and find out the book which is written that is perhaps the best book on pure Jagdish Reddy Dr. Jagdish Reddy. Sandeep Vasudeva says DNA tests are very sensitive our investigation teams are not knowing much about how to handle it so what does your take to how I want to say the same thing I don't want people to because the DNA is a perfect science don't give simply blindly follow the reports for there are bound to be variations because they're found as a measure of practice in about 100 doctors if we are if you're analysts if you give to them and there is something called as a cognitive bias I didn't use this expression anywhere in my lecture but I'm still telling you if you want to bring a comparison even for thumb impression thumb impression is supposed to be 100% perfect science but then if you pick up something trace on from a thumb impression from a handle and you want to prove whether it was a particular thief thumb impression I have let us say five suspects and I bring the five suspects thumb impression and I gather something from the sample there the suspected one and then present it to an expert there is a cognitive bias they say the bias is to find the comparisons which are similar out of five the scientists will say yes one is similar so therefore there is a sure buy the same way the kind of a bias can exist even in DNA samples you will find similarities in some way because in the STRs when we're talking about the repeats we go up to 15 or 16 or 23 we need to therefore ask the question how many repeats were done was it sufficient was the sample adequate for you to bring comparisons is it sure that could be only this person to the extent to which it is that kind of an analysis would be essential so therefore you can't bring a 100% certainty it's a probability we are talking about that there are errors which are possible errors which can occur an account of the poor quality of the sample the weather conditions and several other things but a cognitive bias of what that the scientist has you will try to support the prosecution what he brings and says this is a suspect we have one of these two persons must have done so please give us the report the doctor will be looking the scientists will be looking to find comparisons which are similar so therefore understand that there are a lot of validalities in the reports which are possible and it is essential that we address ourselves I show to you those two texts only because the primer for judges is just in a small piece of 16 pages plus some 20 pages of annexures graphs astonishingly vivid and lucid and it is essentially for the judiciary for the law the same way the peak cast is there are all the the report is to the judiciary all the lawyer community must read and know what is the latest in the science in the matter of DNA so that is my response to you in fact we were asked it but I had to push it somewhere already we are late and the session was quite engaging and we actually learned a lot you have to took us to the entire I can say the spectrum of law under the forensic and what actually have changed during this this event of time so we are all grateful and before we part for the day what we can't normally say keep maintaining the social distancing and get yourself vaccinated and remain at your home that's the best way forward and tomorrow we have a session on the employee's compensation what is the procedure and practice with the latest free for judgments do join us at 6 p.m. and thank you sir we are enamored the way you have taken forward thank you thank you thanks wonderful because if we connected again to all of you it's my proud privilege to be associated I'm sure there will be some we would keep on bothering you