Must the prosecution prove the chain of custody of forensic samples before a DNA/FSL report can be relied upon?

Yes. The sanctity and chain of custody of the samples must be established by link evidence from their collection until they reach the FSL. Where the samples were not sealed at the very inception, no witness proved that they remained in a self-same condition and the malkhana-in-charge was never examined, the reports must be eschewed from consideration.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss.207, 293 — Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — ss.24, 25, 26 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.302, 376A — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss.5, 6 — Just and fair manner — Legal aid counsel — DNA profiling — Chain of custody — Last seen — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.207 — Legal aid counsel — Opportunity to defend before charge — Held: Framing charges on the day the relied upon documents are supplied denies the accused a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Where the amicus curiae is compelled to cross-examine on the day of his appointment, the trial is not conducted in a just and fair manner. (¶15, 16) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.293 — DNA profiling — Expert must be examined — Held further: A DNA profiling report is not admissible ipso facto by virtue of Section 293; the prosecution must examine the expert and prove that the techniques were reliably applied. Non-examination of that expert is fatal and the report cannot be admitted in evidence. (¶39, 40) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Forensic samples — Chain of custody — Link evidence — Held further: The sanctity and chain of custody of the samples, from their collection till they reach the FSL, must be proved by link evidence. Where they were not sealed at the inception and no witness proves their self-same condition, the reports are eschewed from consideration. (¶54, 55) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.302 — Last seen — Silence of the witnesses; no test identification parade — Held further: Where the witnesses of last seen remained silent before the police officers who reached the spot and no test identification parade was held, the last seen theory is demolished. With the DNA/FSL reports eschewed, no evidence remains to connect the appellant with the crime; conviction and death sentence set aside, appeals allowed. (¶35, 36, 56)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of KARANDEEP SHARMA @ RAZIA @ RAJU v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India