Challenging FSL Evidence in Acid Attack Cases: Cross-Examination Strategies and Judicial Precedents

Cross-Examining FSL in Acid Attack Cases: Key Insights

Acid attacks are heinous crimes that leave victims with lifelong scars, both physical and emotional. In Indian courts, forensic evidence from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) often plays a pivotal role in securing convictions under sections like 326A and 326B of the Indian Penal Code. However, the cross-examination of FSL reports and witnesses can significantly undermine the prosecution's case if procedural lapses are exposed. A common query from defense lawyers is: cross examination of fsl in acid attack case. This blog explores strategies, judicial insights, and critical factors that determine the reliability of FSL evidence.

Typically, effective cross-examination focuses on the integrity of evidence handling, chain of custody, and adherence to protocols. Courts have repeatedly emphasized that lapses here can render forensic findings suspect, shifting reliance to ocular or circumstantial evidence.

The Role of FSL Evidence in Acid Attack Prosecutions

In acid attack cases, FSL examines seized items like bottles or containers to confirm the presence of corrosive substances such as sulphuric acid. The report's probative value hinges on proper collection, sealing, and forwarding of evidence. Failure in these areas provides ammunition for cross-examination.

Key judicial observations highlight that the failure to send seized articles, such as bottles or containers, to FSL can undermine the evidentiary value of forensic reports2010 1 Supreme 49 2017 0 Supreme(UK) 180. For instance, witnesses like constables or scientific officers (e.g., PW5) have admitted under cross-examination that seized containers were not sent to the FSL for examination, directly impacting the report's credibility 2010 1 Supreme 49 2017 0 Supreme(UK) 180.

Procedural Lapses Exposed During Cross-Examination

Chain of Custody and Sealing Issues

Maintaining an unbroken chain of custody is crucial. Courts stress proper sealing, documentation, and witness signatures on parcels. In the Mahmood case, the investigator's failure to obtain witness signatures or entrust seals to respectable persons raised doubts about evidence genuineness 2010 1 Supreme 49. Similarly, in Sher Singh, the absence of seal impressions forwarded to FSL made the findings unreliable 2010 1 Supreme 49.

Cross-examiners often probe:- Whether seals were forwarded to FSL.- Signatures of independent witnesses on seizure memos.- Documentation of evidence transfer.

The absence of independent witnesses or corroborative evidence regarding the seizure and handling of evidence can affect the weight given to forensic reports2010 1 Supreme 49 2017 0 Supreme(UK) 180.

Admissions by FSL Witnesses

FSL witnesses, during cross-examination, frequently reveal gaps. For example, in several cases, scientific officers conceded that seized items were never examined, weakening the prosecution 2010 1 Supreme 49 2017 0 Supreme(UK) 180. Discrepancies in reports, like untested containers, invite suspicion: Courts have emphasized that the failure to follow proper procedures, such as not forwarding seals or not obtaining signatures of witnesses, can lead to suspicion about the genuineness of forensic findings2010 1 Supreme 49 2017 0 Supreme(UK) 180.

Judicial Precedents on FSL Reliability

Indian courts scrutinize FSL evidence rigorously. The credibility of forensic evidence can be questioned if there are discrepancies in the chain of custody or procedural lapses, impacting the overall case2010 1 Supreme 49 2017 0 Supreme(UK) 180.

In one case, despite no FSL report, conviction under Section 326A was upheld based on other materials, noting: Section 326(A) is applicable not only in cases where injury is caused by throwing acid but also in case of causing injury by using any other means. Therefore, although there is no FSL report available in this case, yet, having regard to the materials on record, we are inclined to agree with the findings of the learned trial court that the victim had suffered acid attack on the day of the incident.2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 962. This illustrates that while FSL lapses hurt, strong corroboration can salvage the case.

Conversely, in 2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 27293, the court quashed a conviction due to uncorroborated testimony and lack of reliable FSL tests for sulphuric acid: test for the presence of sulphuric acid whereas, the injured... The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, underscoring FSL's importance when other evidence is weak.

In another instance, medical records and cross-examination of doctors revealed ambiguities: The only reference to ‘acid’ in the entire medical record comes during the cross-examination of Dr. Kedia (PW-6), when he could not confirm the cause of injury, 'I cannot say as to whether it was a case of self pouring of acid or someone had poured acid on the patient'.2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 2438.

Broader Evidence Challenges in Acid Attack Cases

Cross-examining FSL is part of a larger strategy. In IND_KAR00000124566_Delhi_CRLA-283_2017 2020_DHC_3247, poor cross-examination of witnesses (including no cross of PW1, PW9, etc.) and MLC inconsistencies (history as 'Acid Attack' vs. 'acid burns') weakened the case IND_KAR00000124566_Delhi_CRLA-283_2017 2020_DHC_3247.

Victim testimonies must be consistent; otherwise, acquittals follow, as in a case with 100% visual impairment where inconsistencies in victim testimonies can lead to acquittal2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 11007.

Even with enmity, injured witnesses' unchallenged testimony can corroborate acid attacks: This version of P.W.1 Shyam Bihari regarding loss of vision of both eyes in the acid attack... remained unchallenged in the cross-examination.2022 0 Supreme(Pat) 347.

Exceptions and When FSL Lapses Don't Doom the Case

Not all procedural flaws invalidate evidence:- Courts may accept reports if corroborated by medical or ocular evidence.- Minor lapses don't automatically discredit if they don't go to the root.

Even if forensic evidence is not sent or procedures are not perfectly followed, courts may still consider the reports if corroborated by other evidence or if the lapses are deemed minor.

Practical Recommendations for Defense and Prosecution

For defense counsel:- Grill FSL witnesses on non-submission of articles.- Highlight missing seals or witness signatures.- Demand chain of custody logs.

Investigators should:- Strictly adhere to established protocols, including proper sealing, documentation, and forwarding of seized articles to FSL.- Ensure witness examination for chain integrity.

Courts are urged to scrutinize these aspects during trials.

Victim compensation schemes, like NALSA's, provide relief irrespective of FSL issues, with amounts up to Rs.8 Lakh for severe disfigurement 2021 0 Supreme(Jhk) 94.