Your Content Goes Here
Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, makes up the majority of a human’s genetic makeup. The structure of human DNA is a double helix. The majority of a cell’s DNA, known as nuclear DNA, is located there, while some DNA is also found in the mitochondria, known as mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). It forms chromosomes, which house all of our genes and other genetic information when it combines with proteins.
One of the most important and trustworthy technologies utilized in the USA and UK to identify specific offenders by their own unique DNA patterns is DNA Fingerprinting. Sir Alec Jeffreys of the UK realized that no two individuals could have the exact same DNA sequence in 1984. [2] Despite the fact that more than 99% of human DNA is the same in all people, some specific strands are different even among people with the same DNA sequence. This was first discovered by Sir Jeffreys. As a result, DNA fingerprinting was created. It didn’t take long for DNA fingerprinting to show promise in criminal investigations. This approach was used in 1986 to solve the murder and rape of a teenage girl named Dawn Ashworth, who lived close to Leicester. Richard Buckland, the accused man, was found not guilty; Colin Pitchfork, the real criminal, was. It was the first instance of DNA technology being applied.
Perks
Precision
There is always a chance to discover DNA from individuals other than the perpetrator at a crime scene. Today, the majority of investigating organizations use DNA fingerprinting to identify the criminal’s DNA in situations like this. Additionally, if a blood sample or other sample mixture is discovered at the crime scene. Today’s DNA technology has advanced enough to be able to distinguish each person’s blood from a mixture of samples. This has been very helpful in getting rape convictions.
For instance, if a girl is raped by, say, six people, DNA fingerprinting may identify each person’s DNA sequence, and when we compare it to the suspects, we can identify the offenders. In these situations, everyone whose DNA pattern matches the sample is found guilty, but those whose DNA sample does not match are exonerated and found not guilty.
Consistency
DNA evidence is now more widely accepted than narcotics analysis since it is reliable. The drug analysis is an arbitrary procedure. There is a great deal of subjectivity in it. People could possibly trick it. DNA cannot lie, but people can. Statistics had previously cast doubt on the possibility of two people sharing the same DNA sequence. However, because of advancements in technology, it is now established that no two people can have the exact same DNA sequence. The courts do not typically consider narcotics analysis as evidence since it is not usually trustworthy.
It is widely utilized for non-criminal applications as well, including as paternity tests, seed stock identification, consumer product authenticity, and medical diagnosis.
Barriers
Twins that are identical or monozygotic share the same DNA. Because of this, law enforcement authorities continue to be wary of using DNA fingerprinting to deal with and identify the true perpetrator in such circumstances. The question of whether such twins can be found guilty solely on the basis of DNA evidence also arises. The main drawback of DNA evidence is this. The DNA of two identical twins is identical. Therefore, DNA evidence cannot be used to convict them in a situation where one of them has committed a crime. But in these situations, a straightforward fingerprint will assist in convicting the genuine offender. It’s because the identical twins’ fingerprints differ just slightly from one another. However, only whole fingerprints are accepted in legal proceedings because shrewd defense attorneys dispute partial prints because they can be compared to others.
Using in India
The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 and the Criminal Procedure Code of 1973 do not cover DNA testing as evidence. The polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based DNA profiling technique being employed in India makes use of short tandem repeats (STR). The DNA test is now much faster and more accurate thanks to these methods. These methods are quite effective and popular in many nations. In India, Dr. Lalji Singh is regarded as the “Father of DNA Fingerprinting.” He invented the technology and applied it for the first time in India in 1988.
Utilization Issues in India
Sample handling
Taking Care of Samples DNA evidence must be accurately and properly collected, preserved, and documented in order to be accepted as admissible by a court. An accused person may be exonerated if DNA evidence is handled incorrectly, as was the case in the iconic OJ Simpson case. The collection and preservation process is crucial. It is necessary to use forceps and sterile gloves. Our DNA will contaminate the sample if we use our hands during the collection process.
The police constables in India today lack training in DNA sample collection. When a crime occurs abroad, forensic scientists and detectives are the first to arrive at the site to gather evidence. However, in India, a rookie constable goes there first. He removes the body and washes it, following his instinct. He obliterates crucial DNA evidence in the process. They must therefore receive training in handling, gathering, and sealing forensic evidence. However, even if there is some contamination, the test results will show it; we will observe a weak band of the individual whose DNA has been contaminated and a robust band of the true criminal’s DNA. However, courts do not accept such tainted evidence as proof.
Samples’ Storage:
DNA samples are kept in the National DNA Databases in the US and the UK. Police can only collect and deposit DNA that has been recovered from a crime scene; their retention authority is very limited. As opposed to India, where the police are able to collect and hold onto a suspect’s DNA even after they have been found not guilty. Many people are concerned about this because they worry that it could result in the misuse of the DNA database and expose personal information about individuals. the suspects even after their exoneration.
DNA from every prisoner should be kept in the database so that repeat criminals can be easily caught. Furthermore, the government is working to compile a database of everyone in nations like the UK, including innocent people who have not been convicted or found not guilty. Such databases will be useful for medical research as well as for assisting in homicide investigations.
Insufficient testing facilities:
There are ample facilities for DNA testing in other nations. Given the abundance of institutions, anyone can have their DNA fingerprinted. They can sequence the entire genome for as little as $10000 to $12,000. However, there are not many facilities in India. People must travel all the way to the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, or CCMB, in Hyderabad to perform a DNA test. Not everyone may be able to pull this off. Due to the effectiveness of this technology, this institution needs to have branches in every region of the nation. If it can’t be done, it must be ensured that DNA testing is easily accessible to everyone across the nation.
Infringement of constitutional rights:
There have been a lot of ethical questions raised about DNA tests. According to some, it violates Article 20 of the Indian Constitution’s protections for the rights to privacy, life, and self-incrimination.
The ND Tiwari case is the most well-known application of DNA fingerprinting in India. Rohit Shekhar claimed that the well-known politician ND Tiwari was his biological father. Numerous legal questions regarding DNA testing came up in the ensuing paternity lawsuit, including whether paternity can be definitively established (100%) by such testing and if individuals have the right to maintain the confidentiality of such results.
According to Indian law, no one can be compelled into providing DNA evidence against their will. However, in some cases today, judges are requiring suspects to submit to DNA tests. All of these defenses were made, just like in the ND Tiwari case. But for the sake of the general public, the court ordered ND Tiwari to provide a sample of his blood. To uphold the demands of justice, courts have the authority to order persons to provide blood samples.
