Supreme Court Acquits Death Row Convict Over Mishandled DNA Evidence — Issues National wide Guidelines

In a major decision with far-reaching consequences, the Supreme Court of India today (July 15) acquitted a man who had been sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a couple in Tamil Nadu. The Court found serious flaws in how DNA evidence was handled during the investigation, raising major questions about the reliability of the proof used to convict him.

The case involved Kattavellai @ Deevakar, who was earlier found guilty by a trial court for the crimes under Sections 302 (murder), 376 (rape), and 397 (robbery) of the Indian Penal Code. His conviction was mainly based on DNA evidence linking him to the crime scene, and it was upheld by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court found that the investigation was faulty and the DNA evidence could not be fully trusted.

“A common thread that can be seen to be running through the entire process that has culminated by way of this judgment, is that of faulty investigation,” the Court noted.

What Went Wrong?

While hearing the appeal, a three-judge bench led by Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta found several serious issues in the investigation process:

• No Chain of Custody Register: There was no clear record of who handled the DNA samples and when.

• Delays in Submitting Samples: The DNA samples were not sent to the forensic lab on time.

• Poor Sample Storage: There was no information about how the biological materials were stored, raising fears of contamination or tampering.

  
  

These lapses led the Court to conclude that the DNA evidence was not reliable enough to convict someone, let alone sentence them to death.

Supreme Court Issues Key Guidelines:

Recognizing the sensitive and powerful nature of DNA evidence in criminal cases, Justice Karol—who authored the judgment—issued several new rules to improve how DNA and biological materials are handled during investigations across India. Here are the key directions:

1. Proper Documentation of Collection:DNA samples must be collected carefully with complete paperwork including:

   • FIR details

   • Sections of law involved

   • Investigating officer and police station info

   • Medical professionals and witnesses' signatures

   If independent witnesses are not available, efforts to include them must still be recorded.

   
   

2. Quick Transportation to Labs:Investigating officers must ensure samples are delivered to forensic labs within 48 hours. If there's a delay, it must be explained in the case diary.

   
   

3. Strict Storage Rules:Once stored, no DNA sample can be opened or resealed without court permission and a certified medical opinion confirming that doing so will not harm the integrity of the evidence.

   
   

4. Chain of Custody Register Mandatory:A full record of every movement of the sample—from collection to trial—must be kept. This register must be part of the court record. Failing to maintain it could hold the officer accountable.

   
   

Nationwide Compliance Ordered:

The Court directed its Registry to send copies of this judgment to:

• All High Courts

• Directors General of Police (DGPs) of all states

It also called on Police Academies to train investigating officers to follow these procedures strictly. The goal: to protect the fairness of investigations and ensure DNA evidence is handled correctly.

Final Thoughts:

This judgment is a landmark decision that not only freed a man from death row due to unreliable evidence, but also created a national framework for the proper handling of DNA. As scientific tools like DNA become more common in criminal investigations, so does the responsibility to use them properly.