The SC issued Guidelines for Cases where DNA Evidence is Involved

Syllabus: GS2/Polity and Governance

Context

• The Supreme Court, in Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu, recently issued guidelines to maintain the integrity of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) samples in criminal cases. 

Significance of DNA Evidence in Criminal Cases

• DNA is a molecule that encodes the genetic information in all living organisms. 
  • It can be obtained from biological materials, such as bone, blood, semen, saliva, hair, or skin. 
• Generally, when the DNA profile of a sample found at a crime scene matches the DNA profile of a suspect, it can be concluded that both samples have the same biological origin. However, it is not substantive evidence in criminal cases.
• In the Devakar case, the Supreme Court said that DNA evidence is only an expert’s opinion (under Section 45 of the Evidence Act / Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023).
  • Like any opinion, its value changes from case to case.
  • So, DNA evidence cannot be accepted blindly; it must be properly proved both scientifically and legally before a court relies on it.

Need for the SC Direction

• Procedural Delays: The court found significant unexplained delays in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for DNA analysis.
  • Also, the chain of custody of the sample could not be established so, under such circumstances the possibility of sample contamination could not be ruled out.
• Lack of Uniformity: Although some guidelines have been issued by various bodies, there is neither uniformity nor a common procedure required to be followed by all investigating authorities. 

Guidelines of SC

• The Supreme Court issued four guidelines for cases where DNA evidence is involved. 
  • Procedure for Collection: The document recording the collection must include the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, the investigating officer, and independent witnesses.
  • Transportation: The investigating officer shall be responsible for the transportation of the DNA evidence (sample) to the concerned police station or hospital.
    • Samples must reach the concerned FSL within 48 hours of collection. 
    • In the event of any delay, the reasons must be recorded, and all efforts should be made to preserve the samples.
  • Handling of Sample: While samples are stored pending trial or appeal, no package shall be opened, altered, or resealed without express authorisation from the trial court.
  • Chain of Custody Register: From the time of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the accused, a Chain of Custody Register must be maintained.
    • This register must be appended to the trial court record. The investigating officer is responsible for explaining any lapses in compliance.

Previous Judgements of SC

• In Anil v. State of Maharashtra (2014), the Supreme Court observed that a DNA profile is valid and reliable, but this depends on quality control and procedure in the laboratory. 
• In Manoj and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2022), the Supreme Court rejected a DNA report on the ground that recovery was made ‘from an open area and the likelihood of its contamination cannot be ruled out’. 
• In Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs (2022), DNA evidence was ‘rejected because it remained in the police Malkhana for two months and during such time, the possibility of tampering could not be ruled out’. 

Conclusion 

• Though ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ fall under the State List, the Supreme Court issued guidelines to ensure uniform procedures. 
• It stressed that both sample collection by the investigating agency (free from contamination and delay) and quality control in the FSL are crucial for reliable results.

Source: TH