Section 53A CrPC | Samples Collected From Accused Must Be Sent To Laboratory As Soon As Possible : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently while setting aside a death sentence imposed on a convict for allegedly sexually assaulting and killing a minor girl, observed that the samples when collected shall be sent to the laboratory without any delay so that the possibility of contamination and the concomitant prospect of diminishment in value can be ruled out.

It further noted that there shall be compliance of Section 53A of CrPC and ‘chain of custody’ of samples collected shall be maintained.

The bench comprising Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sanjay Karol observed:

“In the present case, the delay in sending the samples is unexplained and therefore, the possibility of contamination and the concomitant prospect of diminishment in value cannot be reasonably ruled out. On the need for expedition in ensuring that samples when collected are sent to the concerned laboratory as soon as possible, we may refer to “Guidelines for collection, storage and transportation of Crime Scene DNA samples For Investigating Officers- Central Forensic Science Laboratory Directorate Of Forensic Sciences Services Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. of India” which in particular reference to blood and semen, irrespective of its form, i.e. liquid or dry (crust/stain or spatter) records the sample so taken “Must be submitted in the laboratory without any delay.”

Facts

As per the FIR dated June 12, 2010, the appellant was charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 376 (Punishment for rape), Section 377 (Unnatural offences), Section 302 (Punishment for murder) and Section 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of IPC for allegedly sexually assaulting a minor girl (aged six years) and putting her to death. It was further alleged that in an attempt to destroy the evidence, the appellant threw the deceased into a ‘nala’ (drain) and concealed material evidence of crime.

The Trial Court vide judgement dated November 27, 2014 convicted the accused-appellant in connection with all the above mentioned offences and imposed capital punishment for the charge under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment for the charge under Sections 376, 377 of IPC and imprisonment of 7 years under Section 201 of IPC.

Such findings of fact and conviction of the Trial Court, including that of the death sentence imposed were affirmed by the High Court of Bombay vide common judgment dated October 13-14, 2015.

Hence, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Court’s View

One of the issues before the Supreme Court was whether there was compliance of statutory requirement of Section 53A of CrPC?

The Court noted that as per the documents on record, the samples of the blood and semen of the appellant were sent for forensic analysis. However, the Court observed that there was nothing on record to establish as to who took such samples, on what date, on how many occasions and why were they not sent all at once. It was further observed by the Court that none of the police officials have testified to the formalities of keeping the samples safe and secure being complied with.

The Court observed:

“There is only one document (Ext.79) on record, indicating the appellant to have been medically examined. But even this document does not reveal sample of the body part being drawn. In any event, the doctor who conducted such examination, has not stepped into the witness box to testify the correctness of the contents thereof. Also the document itself is uninspiring confidence as we notice certain interpolations therein and in a different hand. Additionally, the document does not fall true to the statutory requirements imposed under Section 53A CrPC.”

The Court relied upon its own decisions in Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana (2011) 7 SCC 130 and Rajendra Prahladrao Wasnik v. State of Maharashtra (2019) 12 SCC 460 wherein it was held that if reasonable grounds exist, then a medical examination as postulated by Section 53A(2) CrPC must be conducted and that includes examination of the accused and description of material taken from the person of the accused for DNA profiling.

The Court observed that there was a glaring lapse in the investigation of the alleged crime and the medical examination of the appellant would have resulted into ascertainment of such assault.

“As has been hitherto observed, there is no clarity of who took the samples of the appellant. In any event, record reveals that one set of samples taken on 14.6.2010 were sent for chemical analysis on 16.6.2010 and the second sample taken, a month later on 20.7.2010 is sent the very same day. Why there exist these differing degrees of promptitude in respect of similar, if not the samenatured scientific evidence, is unexplained,” the Court said.

The Court further referred to “Guidelines for collection, storage and transportation of Crime Scene DNA samples For Investigating Officers- Central Forensic Science Laboratory Directorate Of Forensic Sciences Services Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. of India” which lays down that ;chain of custody’ being maintained which implies that right from the time of taking of the sample, to the time its role in the investigation and processes subsequent, is complete, each person handling said piece of evidence must duly be acknowledged in the documentation, so as to ensure that the integrity is uncompromised.

The Court observed:

“Indisputably, these “without any delay” and “chain of custody” aspects which are indispensable to the vitality of such evidence, were not complied with. In such a situation, this court cannot hold the DNA Report Ext.85 to be so dependable as to send someone to the gallows on this basis.”

The Court further noted that even though, the DNA evidence by way of a report was present, its reliability is not infallible, especially not so in light of the fact that the uncompromised nature of such evidence cannot be established; and other that cogent evidence is absent almost in its entirety.

The Court relied upon its judgment in Pattu Rajan v. State of T.N. (2019) 4 SCC 771 wherein it was laid down that even though the accuracy of DNA evidence may be increasing with the advancement of science and technology with every passing day, thereby making it more and more reliable, we have not yet reached a juncture where it may be said to be infallible

The Court further relied upon its judgement in Manoj v. State of M.P. (2023) 2 SCC 353 in which it was held that the reliance on DNA reports should be corroborated and being an opinion, the probative value of such evidence has to vary from case to case.

“Unfortunately, the courts below did not go into all the aforesaid aspects and presumptuously assumed the guilt of the appellant and held him to have committed the crime,” the Court said.

The Court stated that such multitudinous lapses have compromised the quest to punish the doer of such a barbaric act in absolute peril.

Thus, the Court set aside the conviction and sentences of death penalty and life imprisonment imposed on the appellant and set him at liberty.

Also Read - Recent Acquittals From Supreme Court Reflect Deep Malaise In Our Criminal Trial System

Case Title: Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 461

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment