The Supreme Court acquitted a man on death row citing faulty DNA evidence. It issued strict nationwide guidelines on DNA collection, storage, and chain of custody.
New Delhi: Today, on July 15, the Supreme Court of India has acquitted a man who was on death row in a murder and rape case, citing serious lapses in the investigation, especially regarding the collection and handling of DNA evidence.
Along with granting relief to the convict, the top court also laid down important nationwide directions for all future cases involving forensic evidence.
A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta heard the appeal filed by the convict against a Madras High Court judgment delivered in March 2019, which had confirmed the death penalty in the case. The accused had been arrested on May 28, 2011.
While acquitting the man, the Supreme Court observed that the investigation was “faulty” and pointed out several shortcomings in how the DNA evidence was collected and handled.
The Court highlighted that forensic evidence must be treated with utmost care and transparency to ensure a fair trial.
The Court issued strict directions that are now to be followed in all such cases involving forensic evidence. These include guidelines for collecting, packaging, transporting, storing, and producing DNA evidence in court.
The bench directed that, from now on,
“in all such cases having forensic evidence, the collection of DNA samples after due care and compliance of all necessary procedures, including swift and appropriate packaging, ought to be documented.”
To ensure transparency during the collection of DNA samples, the Court added:
“The document recording the collection shall have the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, the investigating officer and independent witnesses.”
However, the absence of independent witnesses alone will not invalidate the collection of DNA evidence. But efforts to bring such witnesses and the reasons for their absence must be officially recorded.
ALSO READ: Paternity and Privacy Are Two Sides of the Same Coin | Supreme Court Blocks DNA Test
The Court noted:
“The absence of independent witnesses should not be said to have compromised the collection of such evidence, but the efforts to bring such witnesses and the inability to bring them should be recorded.”
The responsibility of transporting DNA samples has now been assigned to the Investigating Officer of the case. The Court directed that:
“The case’s investigating officer [is entrusted] for the transportation of the DNA evidence to the police station or hospital concerned and ensure samples reached the designated forensic science laboratory within 48-hour from collection.”
If there is any delay beyond 48 hours, it must be justified in writing. The Court stated:
“Should any extraneous circumstance present itself and the 48-hours timeline cannot be complied with, the reason for the delay shall be duly recorded in the case diary.”
The Supreme Court also emphasized the need to preserve the DNA samples during the entire legal process. It said:
“While the DNA samples are stored pending trial and appeal, etc., no package shall be opened, altered or resealed without express authorisation of trial court acting upon a statement of a duly qualified medical professional to the effect that the same shall not have a negative impact on the sanctity of evidence.”
Before any tampering, the trial court must be satisfied that the step is necessary for a fair investigation or trial. The Court noted:
“The court concerned had to be assured that the step was necessary for a proper and just outcome of the investigation or trial.”
One of the most critical directions issued was about maintaining a proper record of DNA samples from the point of collection until the conclusion of the case.
The Court said:
“Right from the point of collection to the logical end, ie., conviction or acquittal of the accused, a chain of custody register shall be maintained wherein each and every movement of the evidence shall be recorded with counter sign at each end thereof stating also the reason.”
This “chain of custody” register must be part of the official court record. The Investigating Officer will be held accountable for any lapses in following these procedures.
To ensure implementation, the Court ordered:
“DGPs of all states should prepare sample forms of the register and every other documentation directed by the court and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction if required.”
In the specific case before the Court, the bench found that the circumstances used by the prosecution to prove guilt were not conclusively established.
The Court therefore held:
“As a result, the conviction of the appellant-convict is vacated. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeal is allowed.”
This ruling is expected to have a far-reaching impact on criminal trials in India, especially those involving forensic evidence like DNA. By setting clear procedures and stressing on the integrity of evidence handling, the Supreme Court has taken a significant step to ensure justice is not compromised due to investigative lapses.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Medical
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
