Forensic Science Entrance Exam | Prepare with AIFSET

In movies and television series, forensic science tends to be glamorised as a perfect detective device that automatically solves the most challenging cases. This is why there are a lot of misconceptions about this highly interesting yet complicated sphere. Let’s debunk 7 common misconceptions that have long persisted and reveal the reality of forensic science.

Myth 1: All Forensic Work Happens in Government Labs

Reality: Although most people may believe that forensic scientists work only in government- or law-enforced crime laboratories, most of them are employed in private laboratories, universities, hospitals, and even businesses. Forensic toxicology is only one of the many fundamental examinations that are performed by private forensic experts, making the field extend past the crime scene.

Myth 2: Forensic Evidence Is Always Admissible in Court

Reality: Collection and analysis does not mean court acceptance. To be considered as evidence, it must have met high legal requirements using rules such as the Indian Evidence Act or the Daubert standard in the US. The way the evidence was handled, tested, and presented, and the credentials of the experts can affect the admissibility such that an evidence could be scientifically valid and not allowed in court.

Myth 3: DNA Testing can Complete Investigations in a flash.

Reality: DNA is not a magic bullet. It needs good samples, good laboratory conditions and interpretation in a wider context of investigation. Incomplete or contaminated samples may be misleading and there are cases when forensic teams have to use other types of evidence in order to prove the case such as trace evidence or witness testimonies.

Myth 4: Forensic Science Is All about Solving Crimes.

Reality:Many overlook that forensics is used in civil cases, disaster victim identification, historical research, and even wildlife protection. The use of forensic science in document authentication, paternity, environmental sample examination, and combating fraud exemplify how the field of forensic science can administer justice in a much more significant way than in law enforcement.

Myth 5: Forensic Experts Do Not make errors.

Fact: Forensic scientists are human. Cognitive biases, procedural errors, and equipment failures occur. To reduce errors, modern forensic science uses strict peer reviews, accreditation, and quality controls, nevertheless, it is essential to recognise the fallibility to deliver just justice.

Myth 6: Crime Scene Investigators Always Collect Perfect Evidence

Reality: Real crime scenes are disordered. Evidence collection is challenged by weather, contamination, time delays and human error. Collection quality can be patchy as some evidence can be lost or destroyed before being analysed. Under harsh environments, investigators need to record and retain what they have meticulously.

Myth 7: The CSI Effect Reflects How Trials Work in Reality

Facts on the ground: There is a widespread perception that a jury anticipates dramatic forensic evidence in any trial, which puts strain on prosecutors and creates confusion in determining the decision regarding the judge. The fact is that most convictions depend on conventional evidence such as witness testimonies or circumstantial connections. There is an unending need to train jurors to put forensic evidence into perspective.

Understanding the nuances of forensic science helps students, law professionals, and the public appreciate the science without false expectations. Forensics is an effective investigative tool - not a magic wand. The blend of evidence, professional examination, and legal examination are what bring about justice.

Though five years' time has been allowed under the BNSS for modernizing the forensic facilities, ongoing investment is essential to upgrade the current forensic infrastructure in states.

The new criminal statutes have placed more stress on the application of scientific evidence in the investigation of criminal cases. It is now compulsory for a forensic expert to inspect the scene of crime in the case of crimes punishable with imprisonment for seven years or more, to gather forensic evidence and arrange videography of the process on mobile phone or any other electronic evidence.

It is also necessary to make photography and videography at the time of search and seizure during investigation mandatory. Any electronic evidence of secondary in nature, now also needs certification by a cyber expert. While five years' time has been allowed under the BNSS to enhance the forensic infrastructure, there is a need for continuous investment in upgrading the existing forensic facilities in the states.

Just recently, the Supreme Court (SC) suo moto took cognisance of a news report that brought to light some custodial deaths in the recent past, attributing the problem to non-functional CCTV cameras in police stations. SC in Paramvir Singh versus Baljit Singh (2020) had ordered all states to instal compulsorily and maintain CCTV cameras in police stations as a deterrent against custodial torture.

The verdict also directed to form oversight panels, at state and district levels to oversee installation, operation, budget requirements and maintenance of CCTV setups. The Court stated that CCTV recordings must be stored for at least six months, whereby a victim of violations of human rights could request access to such recordings.

The SC also issued some guidelines recently in Kattavellai @Devakar versus State of Tamil Nadu (2025) so that the DNA samples are collected and stored properly, and sent to the FSL within 48 hours of being collected while there is a good chain of custody. While the validity and reliability of a DNA profile are subject to quality control and procedure within the laboratory, the outside laboratory quality control and procedure are also critical, the Court reaffirmed. The MHA, in January 2019, under the pilot project, had distributed approximately 11,130 Sexual Assault Evidence Collection Kits (SAECKs) under the BPR&D for improved collection, storage and handling of DNA evidence. In fact, the states always need money to purchase such kits in order to collect scientific evidence in investigation.

The Need For Funds

These references have been provided in order to support the fact that the police modernisation funds are always needed for the capacity building of the police forces. Different police reform committees and commissions, Law Commission, and the Supreme Court have re-iterated the request to the police to utilize scientific evidence in investigation.

It would not be an overstatement to state that the cybercrime reporting portal was introduced by the MHA in 2019 at the behest of the directions given by the Supreme Court to prevent the online circulation of pornography and rape videos.

Subsequently, its ambit was broadened and it was integrated with the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) so that action taken by the states is expedited on the police station level.

What Is Modernisation of Police Force Scheme

The scheme for Modernisation of Police Force (MPF) was initiated in the current shape by the MHA during the year 1999-2000 for a tenure of 10 years i.e., till 2009-10. The Bureau of Police Research & Development (BPR&D) was then requested to evaluate the effect of the scheme and provide further suggestions.

The Bureau carried out an independent analysis and also engaged the services of M/S Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. to draw consolidated conclusions.

Although it was widely believed that 'the MPF scheme has benefited the police like nothing else in the past', the Bureau strongly suggested 'the continuation of the scheme with more funds for the LWE and terror infested states. It also suggested inclusion of special schemes for the border and coastal areas.

Why MPF Scheme Is Important For States

It cannot be held in dispute that the MPF scheme has served the states well by enhancing the mobility of the forces, upgrading telecommunication, enhancing weapons, computerisation (including CCTNS), training and security gadgets and enhancing FSLs.

Simultaneously, it is no less true that the police forces' strength has grown and issues proliferated over the years.

As 'Police' and 'Public order' are included in the Seventh Schedule State List of our Constitution, the major responsibility is with the states to make sure that the police can perform their functions effectively in accordance with the Constitutional mandate.

But the Union also has to see that the state government of each state is conducted in accordance with the Constitution provisions.

The Allocation Of Funds

Nowadays, the modernisation funds are released to union territories and states under the 'Assistance to States and UTs for Modernisation of Police' (ASUMP) scheme which is one of the schemes under the umbrella scheme of 'Modernisation of Police Forces' (MPF) run by the Central Government.

Although the Central Government continued the police modernisation programme without interruption, yearly allocations have nearly persistently fallen. Central share that stood at around Rs. 1,558 crores for 2012-13, fell to an all-time low of around 460 crores for 2023-24.

It is only after the implementation of new criminal legislations in July 2024 that Central share in the ASUMP for the year 2025-26 has been enhanced to Rs. 1,007 crores (with total annual plan size of Rs. 1603 crores).

Why Centre Needs To Help States

Though the Central Government has brought in the Public Fund Management System (PFMS) to harmoniously monitor the movement of funds from the Centre to states, it has not been proven to be very user-friendly.

The real expenditure of money has never been up to the allocation due to several obstacles inter-alia cancellation of tender on account of low participation, inability to provide equipment in time by the vendors, delay in sanctioning of proprietary materials and delay in the completion of building activities.

Although the functioning of the Government e-Marketplace (GeM) portal has become better after some time, most of the times Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) and Startups end up being unserious bidders since they are exempted from filing Bid Security (in the form of earnest money deposit).

The affected LWE states are also given financial support under different schemes like Security Related Expenditure (SRE), Special Central Assistance (SCA) and Special Infrastructure Scheme (SIS) like fortified police stations/outposts.

Though the states' expenditure relating to the anti-Maoist operations are being reimbursed in the ratio of 60:40, the grant provided by the Central Government under the SCA for plugging gaps in key security infrastructure is 100%.

Other programs under the MPF are Modernisation of Forensics and Modernisation of Prisons. While decrease in LWE violence and number of affected districts over time is an encouraging trend, the stream of funds for police modernisation has to pick up.

It is therefore argued that the bar of allocations under the police, forensics and prisons modernisation is increased by the Central Government to address a range of challenges including those due to new criminal laws and assist the states in discharging their Constitutional responsibilities.

Section 176 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, which amends Code of Criminal Procedure, makes forensic investigation mandatory in crimes carrying imprisonment of 7 years or more.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the new procedural criminal law mandating forensic investigation of certain offences, would put "immense stress" on laboratories, the Calcutta High Court stated last week. It directed the Union government to designate a laboratory at Kolkata as a central forensic science laboratory (CFSL) to help meet the requirements.

This [amendment] would bring unprecedented pressure on the already established central forensic laboratories and state forensic laboratories to analyze forensic samples, including blood and other fluids, for DNA testing, obtained from the occurrence site," the court stated.

The court then directed the Centre-owned Union government to declare Calcutta's National Institute of Biomedical Genetics (NIBMG), entirely owned by the Centre, as a "CFSL laboratory", to which the NIMBG scientists would be accredited "government scientific experts" status according to law, making them eligible as witnesses before courts.

The BNSS, replacing the previous Code of Criminal Procedure, has been brought in to "use technology and forensic sciences" and "reform" the criminal justice system.

To be specific, Section 176 of the BNSS, providing the procedural guidelines for criminal investigations, has added a provision, to be implemented within five years, mandating forensic evidence in some offences.

Here's ThePrint explaining the provision and when and how it will be implemented.

The provisions of the Act

Section 176 of the BNSS prescribes the overall procedure that investigation agencies are to follow after a crime, and the way a police officer comes to know about a crime and acts.

Sub-section 3 mandates the forensic authorities to collect forensic evidence from the crime scene for every offence which carries more than seven years of punishment. The forensic authorities will visit the crime scene after the police have gained information regarding the crime and collect the forensic samples, which would further be used by the police in order to conduct their investigation.

Where receipt of information is concerning the commission of an offence punishable with a term of imprisonment for seven years or more, the officer commanding a police station shall…order the forensics expert to proceed to the scene of crime to collect forensic evidence in the offence as well as for video recording of the process on a mobile phone or any other digital device, Section 176 (3) of the BNSS provides.

This sub-section will be in force and effective only after the concerned state government notifies a date for the commencement of the section. Once the date is notified by the state government, it must do so in the gazette and upon such notification, the section will commence and its provision will be enforceable.

The Act remains mute on the implication of state governments that do not notify a date for the coming into force of the section. After the states have taken action, in each offence for which an imprisonment of more than seven years is provided, it will be mandatory to conduct a forensic analysis of the crime scene on a direction by a police station in-charge.

Offences such as rape, child trafficking, murder, and dowry death, all of which draw sentences of more than seven years, fall under the purview of the additional requirement of collecting forensic evidence from the site of the crime.

If a state does not have a forensic laboratory to conduct such tests, the clause in the law allows a forensic testing centre located in another state to conduct them.

The erstwhile replaced criminal law system lacked fixed legal requirements for gathering forensic evidence from crime scenes. It depended on the state police whether or not there was a requirement for this kind of evidence.

There have been several concerns raised through the law, including the extensive coverage of forensic data collection including private individuals, the enhanced coverage of personal data collection, and exemptions restraining judicial oversight in forensic reports.

To meet the infrastructural demands brought by the new law, the Centre has set up the National Forensic Science University for enhancing the number of graduating forensic science personnel and scientists every year.

Such laboratories as the Central Forensic Sciences Laboratories (CFSL) in Delhi are similarly gearing up, training and special workshops to prepare their personnel, in the wake of the massive resources and infrastructure required for the successful deployment of the new law at scale.

Nagpur led India's civil engineering fraternity in hosting the National Seminar on Forensic Civil Engineering on 10–11 October 2025, which was instituted by the Institution of Engineers (India), Nagpur Local Centre. The seminar was attended by over 400 delegates comprising civil engineers, researchers, consultants, and academicians from across India for the single-minded purpose of looking for ways to advance structural safety and sustainability.

Under the heading "Understanding, Diagnosing, and Preventing Failures in Structures," the seminar looked at the ways in which forensic science can be employed to prevent and investigate catastrophes within bridges, roads, and other large infrastructures. Some of the topics covered included structural forensics, material degradation, geotechnical failure, environmental forensics, transportation infrastructure, water infrastructure, even legal and ethical principles that guide such investigations.

Some of the seminar attractions included the showcase of 20 real case studies with structural collapse and the techniques of inquiry that were used to lead them to resolution. The examples were best to highlight means by which forensic engineering would make India's transition towards developing and sustaining infrastructure stronger.

Parallel to this was an exhibition featuring the latest diagnostic equipment, test equipment, and materials used in failure analysis, with special focus on technology used in current engineering work. 

The seminar was opened by Union Minister Nitin Gadkari, who was the guest of honor and was conferred the Honorary Fellowship of the Institution of Engineers (India) — an award given to only 52 high-profile personalities in 105 years of the institution. The award recognized Gadkari for his contributions towards sustainable infrastructure and public work innovation.

In hosting this historic seminar successfully, Nagpur reaffirmed itself as a rising hub of forensic civil engineering in India, leading the way with a model for infrastructure development in the country of safety culture, transparency, and innovation.

 Noted speakers such as Dr. C.V.R. Murthy (IIT Madras), Dr. Pradeep Ramancharla (CBRI Roorkee), and Prof. Abhay Bambole (VJTI Mumbai) shared authoritative opinions on structural integrity and technological advancements.

Thirteen Indian forensic medicine experts and researchers were included in Stanford University's Top 2% Scientists list for 2025, a source of great pride for India's scientific and medical community. This global recognition says a lot about their superior quality research work, clinical acumen, and contribution to developing the science of forensic medicine.

The ranking, published every year by Stanford University, orders researchers globally by career-span citation influence, h-index, and co-authorship-adjusted measures—parameters that consider both the amount as well as the quality of published work. Indian experts being included show the nation's increasing contribution to global forensic research and innovation.

Saluting India's Forensic Pioneers

They are also accompanied by Dr. Shankar M. Bakkannavar, Dr. Ashith Acharya, who has also been included on the list for five years in a row, Dr. Tahir UL Gani Mir, and Dr. Sweety Sharma.

Their identification not only speaks volumes of individual merit but also proves to be an indicator of India's growing education and research platform in forensic sciences. These specialists have made immense contributions to areas such as forensic pathology, toxicology, medico-legal examination, and forensic odontology, which have made the country's medico-legal framework even stronger.

Global Impact and Future Outlook

As India continues to invest in forensic research and education, these success stories motivate the next generation of scientists to excel in research. Acknowledgment of these thirteen professionals is the proof of India's new dominance in the area of forensic medicine and its contribution to world health and justice.

Union Home Minister and Cooperation Minister Amit Shah on Monday underscored the revolutionary role forensic science would serve in India's revamped criminal justice system.

Addressing the All India Forensic Science Summit 2025 in New Delhi, organized by the National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU), Shah expressed gratitude to Prime Minister Narendra Modi for transforming the justice system in India with a focus on scientific and technology-based investigations. He went on to add that contemporary crimes are likely to go beyond borders, as is enabled with advances in communications and information technologies, so strong forensic capability is more than ever essential.

The home minister emphasized that these laws replace colonial codes, which are antiquated, and bring in contemporary tools like e-documents, digital summons, and forensic evidence into the legal system. Forensic analysis is now being made compulsory for offenses punishable by over seven years in prison—a very important step towards enhancing the existing conviction rate at 54 percent.

Shah referred to recent instances wherein trials of rape and murder cases were concluded and convictions were obtained within weeks. He emphasized the police's digitization of infrastructure: 100% of police stations are networked with Crime and Criminal Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) now, with over 14 crore First Information Reports (FIRs) and connected information online. These types of systems such as electronic Forensics (e-Forensics), National Automated Fingerprint Identification System (NAFIS), and electronic Prison Management System (e-Prison) are constructing a humongous national database, which will shortly be augmented by Artificial Intelligence (AI) for predictive policing and crime prevention.

Seven campuses are already functioning, nine more are opening shortly and ten more will be set up, which will give it a pan-India presence, claimed the home minister.

All the campuses would focus on a specific niche—like drone, marine, or corporate forensics—and the university would be producing about 36,000 forensic professionals every year, he said.

The home minister promoted the creation of a more humanized judiciary and suggested psychological counseling and criminal classification according to the nature and intent of the offense. A prisoner rehabilitation system with a forensic-oriented perspective would be established in the upcoming two years, he stated.

Shah also discussed the creation of the Modus Operandi Bureau, which would have a study on criminal behavior to further the crime prevention strategy. He demanded greater coordination between NFSU and the Ministry of Home Affairs, and praised young entrepreneurs for their performance during the hackathon of the summit and for popularizing the application of Hindi in forensic science.

Shah again emphasized that India is firmly on a mission to create a crime-free, fair, and technologically advanced society.