RT - Journal TY - JOUR A1 - Vala, Yasasvikumar A1 - Gopani, Divyesh A1 - Babaria, Yash T1 - Limitations of bitemarks as a conclusive evidence YR - 2021/1/1 JF - International Journal of Forensic Odontology JO - Int J Forensic Odontol SP - 78 OP - 83 VO - 6 IS - 1 UL - https://www.ijofo.org/article.asp?issn=2542-5013;year=2021;volume=6;issue=1;spage=78;epage=83;aulast=Vala;t=5 DO - 10.4103/ijfo.ijfo_26_20 N2 - Bite marks identification can be used for comparison of a known person's dentition to a patterned injury, which appears consistent with Bite marks and Forensic odontologists examine, interpret, analyze, and prepare reports on Bite marks. Bite marks identification is facing lots of challenges nowadays because of many wrongful convictions and The National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Science Community 2009 report concluded that “The bottom line is simple: In a number of forensic science disciplines, forensic science professionals have yet to establish either the validity of their approach or the accuracy of their conclusions.” Bite marks evidence is under scrutiny because of lack the scientific foundation, assertions on the uniqueness of Bite marks and lack of reliability and accuracy in Bite marks identification methods. Expert testimony based upon false claims lead to many wrongful convictions and courts also permitted the entry of potentially unsafe testimony. There is a failure on behalf of the courts to undertake any gatekeeping functions. This article explains many irregularities and limitations in Bite marks identification and it also explains the role of the court and expert testimony in many wrongful convictions. ER -