The success of the administration of criminal justice depends upon the evidence produced before the courts by the investigating agencies. Evidence can be called by these agencies through various means like oral evidence, documentary evidence and evidence brought forth through the use of scientific tests. The scientific evidence is considered more reliable in comparison to ocular evidence because the results are demonstrable, verifiable and there is a lack of subjectivity. The reason for this is that the reliance is placed on science and there is exclusion of human intervention because of which subjectivity is negated.

The authors in this article makes an effort to bring two opposite views to a point of convergence where on one hand we have the torch bears of justice who strongly advocate the use of forensic techniques in criminal investigation and on the other hand those who voice their concerns/ challenge about potential errors and admissibility issues regarding the outcome of these tests. The focus of the article is not to question the use of Forensic Science in criminal investigation but to question the accuracy and conclusivity of the results in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused on the basis of these techniques. The authors also analyze some cases of other jurisdictions where conviction was based on the use of forensic evidence and subsequently those who were wrongfully convicted were exonerated.