Non-Examination Of Scientific Expert Who Carried Out DNA Profiling Is Fatal: Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Sentence Of Man In POCSO Case

The Supreme Court has set aside the death sentence of a man in POCSO case, saying that non-examination of the scientific expert who carried out the DNA profiling is fatal, and the DNA report cannot be admitted in evidence.

The Court was deciding Criminal Appeals filed by the accused who was convicted and sentenced for the offences punishable under Sections 376A, 302, 366, 363, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

The three-Judge Bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, "... in the facts and circumstances of the present case, non-examination of the scientific expert who carried out the DNA profiling is fatal, and the DNA report cannot be admitted in evidence. That apart, we find that the very procedure of collection and forwarding of DNA samples to the FSL is full of lacunae and loopholes."

The Bench elucidated that in order to make the DNA report acceptable, reliable, and admissible, the prosecution would first be required to prove the sanctity and chain of custody of the samples/articles right from the time of their preparation/collection till the time they reached the FSL and for this purpose, the link evidence would have to be established by examining the concerned witness.

AOR Sadashiv represented the Appellant/accused while AOR Manan Verma represented the Respondent/State.

Brief Facts

As per the prosecution case, the child-victim went missing from a Jagran function which was organized in the village in June 2016. The victim’s father lodged an FIR and while he was continuing the search operations, someone told him that the body of a girl child was lying in a nearby field. On this, he along with his family members rushed to the location and identified the dead body to be that of his daughter. He suspected that his daughter was subjected to forcible sexual assault before being killed. The body of the victim was sent for post-mortem examination and the Medical Officer took note of multiple injuries on the victim’s private parts and head. Thereafter, the accused was apprehended and it was alleged that the Investigating Officer (IO) got his confession recorded through the Magistrate concerned.

The Appellant-accused was tried by the Fast Track Court/Additional Sessions Judge/Special POCSO Judge and was convicted and sentenced under the relevant provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act. The Trial Court forwarded a reference under Section 366 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) to the Uttarakhand High Court for confirmation of the death sentence. The accused also preferred an Appeal assailing his conviction. The High Court dismissed his Appeal and answered the reference in the affirmative thereby confirming the penalty of death sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court. The said Judgment of the High Court was the subject matter of challenge in the Appeals before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “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 undeniably is not connected with the report in any manner.”

The Court further reiterated that DNA profiling reports cannot be admitted in evidence ipso facto by virtue of Section 293 CrPC and it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the techniques of DNA profiling were reliably applied by the expert.

“The lopsided manner in which trial was conducted is fortified from the evidence of Sub-Inspector Prahlad Singh(PW-12) who was allowed to narrate the entire confession of the appellant, in his examination-in-chief. This procedure adopted by the trial Court in permitting a police officer to verbatim narrate the confession made by an accused during investigation is grossly illegal and contrary to the mandate of Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872”, it remarked.

The Court also noted that the Trial Court even allowed the confessional statement of the Appellant, to be exhibited in the evidence of the witness, which further establishes that the trial was conducted in a totally distorted manner.

“… the fact remains that neither the documents/memorandums pertaining to the proceedings of sealing the said samples/articles were exhibited in evidence nor did any of the prosecution witnesses gave evidence for proving this vital procedure”, it said.

The Court added that the evidence of the IO is totally silent regarding the deposit of the samples/articles in the malkhana of the police station or the mode and manner of transmission thereof from the police station to the FSL.

“No forwarding letter pertaining to the transmission of the samples was proved in the testimony of the Investigating Officer(PW-14) or any other police witness. The malkhana-in-charge of the police station was also not examined by the prosecution. ... Consequently, we feel that the DNA/FSL reports cannot be read in evidence. Once, these reports of the FSL are eschewed from consideration, there remains no evidence on the record of the case so as to connect the appellant with the crime”, it said.

Moreover, the Court observed that there is not even a semblance of evidence on record to satisfy the Court that the samples/articles collected from the dead body of the child-victim and those collected from the Appellant which were later forwarded to the FSL were properly sealed or that the same remained in a self-same condition right from the time of the seizure till they reached the FSL.

“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, thereby, inculpating the appellant in the crime”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court 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)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Sadashiv, Advocates Nishant Sanjay Kumar Singh, and Ashish Singh.

Respondent: AOR Manan Verma, Advocates Sumit Kumar, Shubham Arora, and Anubha Dhulia.

Click here to read/download the Judgment