The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued a slew of directions to ensure forensic evidence like DNA in criminal cases is collected and preserved with the requisite procedural safeguards. Even as procedures regarding the forensic evidence have been suggested by various agencies, there is no uniformity in them, a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta found.
This has the potential to have an impact on the cases investigated, the Court said."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.
To prevent such lapses in the investigations, the Court directed that the collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift and appropriate packaging . 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.
The court also gave this guidelines that 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.
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.
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 Court further ordered the Directors General of Police of all the States to prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register and all other documentation and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction as may be required.
In the final verdict, the top court said there was no eyewitness to the crime and that the accused been directed to be sent to the gallows on the basis of circumstantial evidence.On a critical examination of the evidence, the Court found various lapses in the probe, particularly the DNA evidence.
Follow us
