In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India overturned a death sentence imposed on a convict accused of sexually assaulting and killing a minor girl. The court highlighted the importance of promptly sending collected samples to laboratories to avoid contamination and preserve their evidentiary value. It stressed the need for compliance with Section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the maintenance of a proper “chain of custody” for samples.
The bench, consisting of Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice Vikram Nath, and Justice Sanjay Karol, stated that in the present case, the unexplained delay in sending the samples raised concerns about potential contamination and a subsequent decrease in their reliability. Referring to guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the court noted that samples, particularly blood and semen, must be submitted to the laboratory without delay.
The appellant in this case was charged with offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including rape, unnatural offenses, murder, and causing disappearance of evidence. The charges were related to the alleged sexual assault and killing of a six-year-old girl. The appellant was accused of throwing the victim’s body into a drain in an attempt to destroy evidence.
The trial court convicted the appellant for all the mentioned offenses, imposing a death sentence for murder and other sentences for the remaining charges. The High Court of Bombay affirmed these findings and the death sentence.
One of the key issues before the Supreme Court was whether there had been compliance with Section 53A of the CrPC, which governs the collection and examination of samples.
The court observed that the documents on record indicated that blood and semen samples were collected for forensic analysis. However, there was no evidence establishing who collected the samples, when they were collected, on how many occasions, and why they were not sent together. The court noted that none of the police officials testified about the proper handling and storage of the samples.
The court emphasized that the medical examination of the appellant, as required by Section 53A(2) of the CrPC, would have been crucial in determining the veracity of the alleged assault. However, the lack of clarity regarding the sample collection process raised doubts about the reliability of the evidence.
Furthermore, the court referred to the importance of maintaining a “chain of custody” for samples, ensuring that their integrity remains intact from the time of collection to the completion of investigative processes. The court observed that this aspect, as well as the requirement for prompt submission of samples, had not been complied with in the present case.
The court highlighted its previous rulings that emphasized the need for reasonable grounds for medical examinations and the collection of material for DNA profiling from the accused.
The court concluded that the various lapses and discrepancies in the investigation and handling of samples had compromised the pursuit of justice in this barbaric crime.
Accordingly, the court set aside the conviction and sentences of death penalty and life imprisonment, granting the appellant his liberty.
The ruling underscores the significance of maintaining the integrity of forensic evidence and the need for strict adherence to procedural requirements in criminal cases.
Prakash Nishad @ Kewat Zinak Nishad v. State of Maharashtra
