Supreme Court Acquits Man Who Was Awarded Death Penalty; Issues Directions For Cases Where DNA Evidence Is Involved
|The Supreme Court directed that the collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure shall be duly documented.
The Supreme Court while acquitting a man who was awarded death penalty in murder and rape case, has issued certain directions which shall be followed in all cases where DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) Evidence is involved.
The Court was hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, by which his conviction under Sections 302, 376, and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and death penalty imposed by the Trial Court, were affirmed.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued the following directions –
1. The collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift and appropriate packaging including a) FIR number and date; b) Section and the statute involved therein; c) details of I.O., Police station; and d) requisite serial number shall be duly documented. The document recording the collection shall have the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, the investigating officer and independent witnesses. The absence of independent witnesses shall not be taken to be compromising to the collection of such evidence, but the efforts made to join such witnesses and the eventual inability to do so shall be duly put down in record.
2. The Investigating Officer shall be responsible for the transportation of the DNA evidence to the concerned police station or the hospital concerned, as the case may be. He shall also be responsible for ensuring that the samples so taken reach the concerned forensic science laboratory with dispatch and in any case not later than 48 hours from the time of collection. 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. Throughout, the requisite efforts be made to preserve the samples as per the requirement corresponding to the nature of the sample taken.
3. In the time that the DNA samples are stored pending trial appeal etc., no package shall be opened, altered or resealed without express authorisation of the Trial Court acting upon a statement of a duly qualified and experienced medical professional to the effect that the same shall not have a negative impact on the sanctity of the evidence and with the Court being assured that such a step is necessary for proper and just outcome of the Investigation/Trial.
4. Right from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., 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 therefor. This Chain of Custody Register shall necessarily be appended as part of the Trial Court record. Failure to maintain the same shall render the I.O. responsible for explaining such lapse.
The Bench further directed, “The Directors General of Police of all the States shall prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register and all other documentation directed above and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction as may be required.”
Senior Advocate V. Mohana appeared for the Appellant/Accused while Senior Advocate V. Krishnamurthy appeared for the Respondent/State.
Case Background
As per the prosecution case, a young man (D1) left his house on his father’s motorbike under the pretext of playing cricket. Similarly, the second victim (D2) left home that morning telling her parents that she was going to college. Without knowledge to either set of parents, the two victims went to Suruli Falls, which was apparently a popular meeting point for friends and lovers. Already there, was another couple, (PW-5 and Bhagyalakshmi) eating food. The two victims were also seated a short distance away, approximately 60 meters from them. It was alleged that the Appellant-accused first came to PW-5 and his partner asking to part with her jewellery, which she did but upon finding that they were not made of gold and instead were imitation made of brass, he threw the same back at her and approached the victims. PW-5 and his partner subsequently fled from the place having noticed the former having some conversation with the victims.
Allegedly, the Appellant threatened the victims to part with money and gold, which they refused. Such refusal, according to the prosecution is what led to him killing the victims. Thereafter, father of D-2 lodged a complaint alleging that D-1 had kidnapped his daughter. Subsequently, the bodies of victims were found in the forest area, which were decomposed considerably, lying face down. Eventually, the Appellant was arrested and then the IO noting that both the Appellant and victims belonged to backward communities, added a charge under Section (3)(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act), along with two counts of Section 302; as also Sections 379 and 376 IPC. The Trial Court convicted the Appellant and imposed death penalty on him. The High Court upheld the same and hence, the Appellant approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts of the case, observed, “Despite the presence of DNA evidence, it has to be discarded for the reason that proper methods and procedures were not followed in the collection, sealing, storage, and employment of the evidence in the course of the Appellant convict's conviction. DNA, as we have observed, has been held to be largely dependable, even though this evidence is only of probative value, subject to the condition that it is properly dealt with.”
The Court added that over the past decades, many cases have come to their logical conclusion with the aid of DNA evidence in many regions across the world and it is equally true that many persons wrongly convicted have finally had justice served, with them being declared innocent because of advancements in this technology.
“It is unfortunate that, alongside such advancements, we still have cases where, despite the evidence being present, it has to be rejected for the reason that the concerned persons, either doctors or investigators, have been careless in the handling of such sensitive evidence”, it further remarked.
The Court said that a common thread that can be seen to be running through the entire process that has culminated, is that of faulty investigation.
DNA- A Necissitated Addendum
The Court also noted, “… the DNA evidence collected has been rendered unusable. It suffers from various shortcomings in as much as there is large amount of unexplained delay; the chain of custody cannot be established; possibility of contamination cannot be ruled out etc. … although, procedures have been suggested, there is no uniformity nor there is a common procedure which is required to be followed by all investigating authorities. This, obviously, has the potential to have an impact on the cases investigated.”
The Court remarked that when it comes to procedure followed by the police generally, differences therein are understandable keeping in view the difference in society, regional complexities as also other factors given the wide length and breadth of the country, however, the same yardstick cannot be applied when it comes to sensitive evidence such as DNA for the concerns, causes of its dilution in evidentiary value and requirements for it to be collected and maintained in pristine condition is not subject to the same factors.
“So, even though ‘Police’, ‘Public Order’ are subjects mentioned in List-II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India that in itself cannot permit differing procedures and sensitivities to such evidence, to rule the roost. The aspects in which we find there to be errors committed regularly are in fact procedural aspects which aid the sanctity of the evidence”, it added.
Conclusion
Coming back to the facts of the case, the Court held that none of the circumstances posited by the prosecution are found to be conclusively proved against the Appellant.
“The chain of circumstantial evidence in no way points to a singular hypothesis, that is the guilt of the accused, ruling out his innocence or involvement of none else in the crime. 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”, it directed.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the worrying feature here is that the conviction had no legs to stand on whatsoever and yet the Appellant has been in custody for years.
“The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to all High Courts and also the Directors General of the Police of all States to ensure necessary compliance. The Police Academies of the States are requested to examine the necessity of conducting training of the Investigating Officers to ensure full compliance with the requisite precautions and procedures in accordance with the directions issued herein above”, it directed and concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal, acquitted the Appellant, and issued necessary directions.
Cause Title- Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 845)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate V. Mohana, AOR A. Karthik, Advocates Manasa Ramakrishna, Shreya Rastogi, and Sreepriya K.
Respondent: Senior Advocate V. Krishnamurthy, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Jahnavi Taneja, Veshal Tyagi, and Danish Saifi.