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 [Kattavellai @ Devakar v State of Tamil Nadu]..Although 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, however, the same yardstick cannot be applied when it comes to sensitive evidence such as DNA for the concerns, causes of its dilution in evidentiary value and requirements for it to be collected and maintained in pristine condition is not subject to the same factors. investigating authorities," it added..To prevent such lapses in the investigations, the Court directed that:1. The collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift and appropriate packaging including a) FIR number and date; b) Section and the statute involved therein; c) details of I.O., Police station; and d) requisite serial number shall be duly documented. The document recording the collection shall have the signatures and designations of the medical professional present, the investigating officer and independent witnesses. 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.2. 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. Should any extraneous circumstance present itself and the 48-hours timeline cannot be complied with, the reason for the delay shall be duly recorded in the case diary. 3. 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.4. 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."The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to all High Courts and also the Directors General of the Police of all States to ensure necessary compliance. The Police Academies of the States are requested to examine the necessity of conducting training of the Investigating Officers to ensure full compliance with the requisite precautions and procedures in accordance with the directions issued herein above," it added..The Court was dealing with the appeal of one Kattavellai @ Devakar, who was awarded death sentence by a trial court in Tamil Nadu in 2018 in a murder and rape case dating back to 2011. The case pertained to the murder of a man and a woman, who was also raped.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."Despite the presence of DNA evidence, it has to be discarded for the reason that proper methods and procedures were not followed in the collection, sealing, storage, and employment of the evidence in the course of the Appellant- convict's conviction," the Court said.The Court also rejected the reliance on confessions of the accused. None of the circumstances posited by the prosecution are found to be conclusively proved against him, it concluded.It thus set aside the convection and death sentence of the man, observing that he has secured a clean acquittal.“The conviction had no legs to stand on whatsoever and yet the Appellant-convict has been in custody for years,” the Court observed, directing his immediate release..Taking note of a recent ruling in which the top court had advocated for compensation to those accused who are acquitted after long incarceration, the Court said the legislature has to take a call on the issue."There are two ways that compensation can be claimed – tort claims/civil rights suits/moral bills of obligation and, statutory claims. Given the variety of statutes across jurisdictions grounds for compensations/procedures vary significantly. Well, it is for the legislature to consider this aspect," it said..It also noted that the 277th report of the Law Commission of India, which dealt with wrongful prosecution, had limited itself to cases of malicious prosecution and did not cover the situation at hand. The Court added that in foreign jurisdictions like the United States, compensation is awarded under statutory schemes to individuals who are acquitted after long periods of wrongful imprisonment..Senior Advocate V Mohana appeared for the appellant.Senior Advocate V Krishnamurthy represented the State of Tamil Nadu..[Read Judgment]
