In a pivotal judgment reinforcing due process in criminal trials, the Supreme Court set aside a death sentence in a POCSO case due to serious procedural lapses, including the non-examination of the DNA expert.
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling that underscores the importance of procedural fairness and evidentiary integrity, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to a man under multiple charges, including under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing critical lapses in the prosecution’s case—most notably the non-examination of the DNA expert.
The appeals were heard by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta. The appellant had been convicted by a Fast Track Court and sentenced to death for offences under Sections 376A, 302, 366, 363, and 201 of the IPC and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial court’s decision was subsequently upheld by the Uttarakhand High Court, which confirmed the death penalty. The matter reached the Supreme Court through criminal appeals filed by the accused.
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, the minor victim had gone missing during a religious function (Jagran) in her village in June 2016. An FIR was lodged by her father, and during search operations, a body was discovered in a nearby field.
The deceased was identified as the missing child. Allegations were made that she had been sexually assaulted before being murdered. The post-mortem confirmed multiple injuries, including those to her private parts and head. The accused was apprehended and a confession was allegedly recorded before a Magistrate.
Flaws in the Prosecution’s Case
A pivotal ground for the Supreme Court’s decision was the
“absence of the scientific expert who had conducted the DNA profiling“
The DNA report, which was relied upon heavily to establish the accused’s connection to the crime, was admitted into evidence without the expert being examined—a serious procedural lapse.
The Court observed:
“The first flaw in the prosecution case on the aspect of DNA profiling is that the expert who conducted the DNA examination was not examined in evidence and the DNA report was merely exhibited in evidence by the Investigating Officer (PW-14), who is undeniably not connected with the report in any manner.”
It further clarified that DNA evidence does not become admissible solely by virtue of Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The prosecution must establish the credibility of the testing process by calling the expert who performed the analysis and by proving the chain of custody of the samples.
Chain of Custody and Tampering Concerns
The Court raised concerns over the procedure followed in collecting and forwarding the DNA samples. There was no documentation presented to show how the samples were sealed, stored, or transferred to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
The prosecution failed to call witnesses like the malkhana-in-charge (custodian of seized property) to testify regarding the storage and handling of the samples. Nor were forwarding letters or evidence of receipt of sealed samples at the FSL brought on record.
“No witness from the FSL was examined by the prosecution to prove that the samples/articles were received in a sealed condition. Hence, there is every possibility of the samples being tampered/manipulated by the police officers so as to achieve a favourable result from the FSL,”
the Court noted.
Other Procedural Irregularities
The judgment also pointed to irregularities in how the accused’s confession was handled. A police officer was permitted to narrate the accused’s confession verbatim during examination-in-chief, which the Court deemed grossly illegal and contrary to Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Additionally, the trial court had allowed the confessional statement to be exhibited in the witness testimony, further tainting the fairness of the proceedings.
“The lopsided manner in which trial was conducted is fortified from the evidence of Sub-Inspector Prahlad Singh (PW-12)…”
Given the cumulative effect of these procedural failings, particularly the inadmissibility of DNA evidence and the absence of link evidence to prove chain of custody, the Supreme Court concluded that there was insufficient material to connect the accused to the crime. The Bench therefore allowed the appeals, quashed the impugned judgment, and acquitted the accused.
Cause Title: Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 444
READ MORE REPORTS ON SUPREME COURT
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE