High Court Flags Concerns Over Private Forensics: Impact on Accused’s Rights Highlighted

The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the reliability of private forensic reports, emphasizing the potential impact on the accused’s rights. In a graft case filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the court dismissed charges against a public servant after identifying lapses in the investigative process.

Background of the Case

The case involved a complaint alleging that a public servant demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000 to release a seized vehicle. Acting on the complaint, the Lokayukta Police initiated an investigation, including recording a conversation between the accused and the complainant. The voice sample of this conversation was sent to Truth Labs, a private forensic agency, for analysis. Based on the findings, a chargesheet was filed.

Procedural Lapses Identified

The High Court noted several procedural errors in the investigation:

1. Jurisdictional Overreach:
   • The Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru Rural District, initiated the case despite the alleged incident occurring in Chikkaballapura. According to established protocol, the jurisdictional police should have handled the case.
2. Forensic Analysis:
   • Instead of referring the voice sample to the government Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) in Karnataka, the Lokayukta Police sent it to Truth Labs, a private agency. The court criticized this move, stating that reliance on a private laboratory’s findings without exhausting government channels affected the credibility of the evidence.
3. Rights of the Accused:
   • The High Court emphasized that treating the private lab’s report as “gospel truth” without due validation from an authorized government institution violated the accused’s rights.

Key Observations by the Court

Justice V. Srishananda underscored the importance of maintaining procedural integrity in criminal investigations. The court noted that procedural lapses, including the reliance on private forensic reports, can lead to a miscarriage of justice. Referring to the precedent set in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the court highlighted the necessity of following proper protocols to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings.

The court further stated that the investigation’s credibility is compromised when private agencies are engaged without valid justification. It ruled that the very foundation of the case—the voice analysis report—was flawed, rendering the charges unsustainable.

ALSO READ: Nominate Top Cyber Journalists for FutureCrime Summit 2025 Awards

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment raises critical questions about the role of private forensic agencies in criminal investigations. While private labs can offer specialized services, their reports should complement, not replace, government forensic evidence. The court’s decision reinforces the importance of adhering to established procedures to protect the rights of all parties involved.

For investigative agencies, this ruling serves as a reminder to uphold procedural rigor and avoid shortcuts that could undermine the judicial process. For the legal community, it establishes a precedent that could influence future cases involving private forensic analysis.

Follow The420.in on

 Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram and YouTube