Why in the News?
The Supreme Court has issued guidelines in the Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu Judgement to standardise DNA handling in criminal cases to prevent contamination and delays after evidence lapses in a major case.
Key Highlights of the Supreme Court Guidelines:
- Case Context: It involved rape, murder, and robbery. Court flagged delays in Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) submission, lack of chain of custody, and risk of contamination.
- Need: Lack of uniform procedures across states despite scattered rules. Since Police and Public Order are in the State List, Supreme Court intervened for national uniformity.
- Guidelines Issued:
- Collection and Documentation: Samples must be packaged properly, labelled with FIR details, and signed by medical officer, Investigating Officer, and witnesses.
- Transportation: Investigating Officer (IO) must deliver samples to FSL within 48 hours. Reasons for any delay must be recorded.
- Storage Pending Trial: Packages cannot be opened or resealed without trial court approval.
- Chain of Custody Register: Maintained until conviction or acquittal. IO responsible for explaining lapses.
Previous SC Observations on DNA Evidence:
- Anil v. Maharashtra (2014): DNA reliable only if laboratory procedures are maintained.
- Manoj v. Madhya Pradesh (2022): DNA rejected as recovery was from open area with contamination risk.
- Rahul v. Delhi (2022): DNA held inadmissible after being kept in police custody for two months.
- Pattu Rajan v. Tamil Nadu (2019): DNA value depends on corroborating evidence; absence not fatal.
- Sharda v. Dharmpal (2003): DNA test orders valid; no violation of Article 21.
- Das @ Anu v. Kerala (2022): DNA not self-incrimination under Article 20(3). Section 53A CrPC permits collection in rape cases.
Back2Basics: DNA Profiling
|
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
