NEW DELHI, APRIL 6, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India has set aside the death sentence awarded to a man in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, citing serious lapses in the prosecution’s handling of DNA evidence and procedural violations during trial. The Court held that the non-examination of the scientific expert who conducted the DNA profiling is fatal to the case, rendering the DNA report inadmissible.
The judgment was delivered by a three-judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta, in Criminal Appeals filed by the accused, who had been convicted and sentenced under Sections 376A, 302, 366, 363, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
“…in the facts and circumstances of the present case, non-examination of the scientific expert who carried out the DNA profiling is fatal, and the DNA report cannot be admitted in evidence. That apart, we find that the very procedure of collection and forwarding of DNA samples to the FSL is full of lacunae and loopholes,” the Bench stated.
CASE BACKGROUND
In June 2016, a minor girl went missing from a local religious function (Jagran) in a village. Her father lodged an FIR, and shortly after, her body was discovered in a nearby field. The post-mortem examination revealed multiple injuries on the child’s body, suggesting sexual assault and homicide.
The accused was apprehended and allegedly confessed to the crime before a Magistrate. He was tried by a Fast Track Court/Special POCSO Judge, which convicted and sentenced him to death. The Uttarakhand High Court upheld the conviction and confirmed the death penalty. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court.
SUPREME COURT’S KEY OBSERVATIONS
The Apex Court scrutinized the evidentiary flaws in the prosecution’s case, especially regarding the DNA profiling:
“The first flaw in the prosecution case on the aspect of DNA profiling is that the expert who conducted the DNA examination was not examined in evidence and the DNA report was merely exhibited in evidence by the Investigating Officer (PW-14) who undeniably is not connected with the report in any manner.”
The Bench further emphasized that DNA reports cannot be automatically accepted under Section 293 of CrPC without proving the reliability of the scientific techniques applied:
“DNA profiling reports cannot be admitted in evidence ipso facto by virtue of Section 293 CrPC and it is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the techniques of DNA profiling were reliably applied by the expert.”
ILLEGAL ADMISSION OF CONFESSION
The Court also flagged improper procedures surrounding the accused’s confession:
“The lopsided manner in which the trial was conducted is fortified from the evidence of Sub-Inspector Prahlad Singh (PW-12), who was allowed to narrate the entire confession of the appellant, in his examination-in-chief. This procedure adopted by the trial Court in permitting a police officer to verbatim narrate the confession made by an accused during investigation is grossly illegal and contrary to the mandate of Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.”
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH CHAIN OF CUSTODY
The Court found that no credible link evidence was presented to prove the chain of custody of the DNA samples:
“No forwarding letter pertaining to the transmission of the samples was proved in the testimony of the Investigating Officer (PW-14) or any other police witness. The malkhana-in-charge of the police station was also not examined by the prosecution… Consequently, we feel that the DNA/FSL reports cannot be read in evidence.”
It further warned of the possibility of sample tampering:
“There is every possibility of the samples being tampered with/manipulated by the police officers so as to achieve a favourable result from the FSL, thereby inculpating the appellant in the crime.”
VERDICT: CONVICTION QUASHED, ACCUSED ACQUITTED
In light of the evidentiary lapses and improper trial conduct, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction and death sentence, and acquitted the accused.
“Once, these reports of the FSL are eschewed from consideration, there remains no evidence on the record of the case to connect the appellant with the crime.”
CASE DETAILS:
- Title: Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 444
APPEARANCE:
- For Appellant: AOR Sadashiv; Advocates Nishant Sanjay Kumar Singh and Ashish Singh
- For Respondent: AOR Manan Verma; Advocates Sumit Kumar, Shubham Arora, and Anubha Dhulia
