Copyright infringement not intended

Picture Courtesy:  THEHINDU

Context

In the Kattavellai @ Devakar vs State of Tamil Nadu case (2025), the Supreme Court issued comprehensive guidelines to ensure the integrity of DNA evidence in criminal investigations.

What is DNA Evidence?

DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) is a molecule encoding unique genetic information for every living organism, except identical twins.

In criminal investigations, DNA from biological materials (e.g., blood, semen, saliva, hair, skin) can link a suspect to a crime scene or victim, or exonerate the innocent.

It serves as opinion evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act (now Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), with probative value varying case by case.

Recent Case in Supreme Court

In the Devakar case, involving charges of rape, murder, and robbery, the Supreme Court identified lapses in DNA evidence handling:

• Unexplained Delays: Samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) with delays.
• Chain of Custody Issues: No clear documentation traced the sample’s journey, raising contamination risks.
• Lack of Uniformity: Despite existing guidelines, police and forensic agencies followed inconsistent procedures, as ‘Police’ and ‘Public Order’ fall under the State List (Seventh Schedule, Constitution), leading to varied practices across states.

The Court intervened to establish a uniform, scientifically robust framework to enhance fairness in criminal justice.

Supreme Court’s Guidelines on DNA Evidence

Collection and Documentation

• Trained personnel must collect samples wearing protective gear to prevent contamination.
• Samples must be sealed in tamper-proof containers, labeled with FIR number, date, legal sections, investigating officer’s details, and police station.
• Documentation requires signatures from the medical professional, investigating officer, and independent witnesses.

Transportation

• The investigating officer is responsible for transporting samples to the police station or hospital and ensuring delivery to the FSL within 48 hours.
• Any delay must be documented with reasons, and preservation measures (e.g., refrigeration) must be recorded.

Storage

• Samples must remain sealed during storage, with no opening, alteration, or resealing allowed without trial court authorization.

Chain of Custody Register

• A detailed register must track every handling step from collection to conviction or acquittal.
• The register, attached to the trial court record, holds the investigating officer accountable for explaining lapses.

Challenges in Implementing DNA Guidelines

Infrastructure Gaps: Many FSLs lack advanced equipment, trained staff, and funding.

Case Backlogs: Delays in forensic analysis hinder timely justice.

Training Deficits: Police and forensic personnel often lack standardized training on DNA handling, risking errors.

Privacy Concerns: DNA databases raise ethical issues about data security and misuse.

State Autonomy: As ‘Police’ is a State subject, ensuring uniform implementation across diverse state systems is challenging.

Way Forward

Strengthen Infrastructure: Increase funding for FSLs, equipping them with modern technology and hiring more forensic experts.

Robust Training: Implement mandatory, continuous training for police, medical professionals, and forensic scientists on DNA protocols.

Clear Legislation: Expedite the passage of the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill to provide a comprehensive legal framework.

Monitoring and Accountability: Establish oversight bodies to audit compliance with guidelines at police stations and FSLs.

Public Awareness: Educate legal professionals and the public on DNA evidence’s role and limitations to enhance trust in the justice system.

Conclusion

The Kattavellai @ Devakar guidelines standardize DNA evidence handling, enhancing reliability and credibility while highlighting the need for training, infrastructure, and robust forensic oversight.

Source: THEHINDU