Nivrutti S/o Nagorao Hange Vs State of Maharashtra Through Police Offcer (Bombay High Court)
Chain of Custody and Reliability of DNA Reports: Bombay High Court on Evidentiary Standards in Sexual Offence Cases
Introduction
The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad, in Nivrutti S/o Nagorao Hange v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 889 of 2023, decided on 25 September 2024), delivered a significant ruling acquitting an accused who had been convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The case revolved around allegations that the appellant had repeatedly subjected his minor sister-in-law to sexual assault while she resided with her elder sister and the appellant for educational purposes. The prosecutrix became pregnant and later aborted a non-viable foetus, following which DNA analysis was conducted. The trial court had heavily relied on the DNA report to convict the appellant and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment.
The Prosecution’s Case and Trial Court Conviction
According to the prosecution, the appellant took advantage of his position as the prosecutrix’s brother-in-law to commit repeated sexual assaults, threatening her with dire consequences if she revealed the abuse. When the pregnancy came to light, medical records and DNA analysis allegedly confirmed that the appellant was the biological father of the foetus. Based on this evidence, the trial court convicted him under Sections 376(2)(i), 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life.
Grounds of Appeal
The appellant challenged the conviction on multiple grounds, including the fact that the prosecutrix did not support the prosecution’s case during trial, there was an unexplained delay in filing the FIR, and the procedural safeguards under Section 164-A of the CrPC had not been followed. Most importantly, he contended that the chain of custody of the foetus and blood samples was not properly established and that contradictions and delays in the DNA reports made them unreliable as evidence.
Court’s Analysis of Evidence
The Division Bench of Justices R.G. Avachat and Neeraj P. Dhote held that while the school records proved the prosecutrix was a minor, thereby making the issue of consent irrelevant, the prosecution’s case collapsed because the prosecutrix turned hostile and denied the allegations. Her testimony provided no substantive evidence, and the statements of her elder sister were hearsay in nature. The Court then turned its focus to the DNA evidence, which had been the cornerstone of the trial court’s conviction.
The Court emphasised that DNA analysis, though admissible under Section 45 of the Evidence Act, is a form of expert opinion and not infallible. Its reliability depends on strict compliance with scientific protocols relating to collection, preservation, sealing, and chain of custody of biological samples. In this case, however, the foetus was preserved without clarity as to who handled it, the doctors and police officers who dealt with it were not properly examined, and the blood sample identification forms lacked witness signatures. There was also an unexplained delay of more than a year in DNA testing, which opened the possibility of contamination or tampering. Further, contradictions were noted in the reports, including inconsistencies regarding the sex of the foetus. These shortcomings rendered the DNA evidence unsafe to rely upon.
The Court’s Decision
Holding that DNA reports cannot form the sole basis for conviction unless their integrity is beyond reproach, the Court referred to several Supreme Court precedents which stress that expert opinion must be corroborated by substantive evidence. Since the prosecutrix did not support the case and the scientific evidence was unreliable, the prosecution had failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were therefore quashed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges, with directions for his release unless required in any other matter.
Significance of the Judgment
The decision of the Bombay High Court reiterates an important safeguard in criminal jurisprudence: forensic evidence such as DNA profiling, while a powerful investigative tool, must be handled with utmost care and in accordance with established protocols. Any lapse in collection, preservation or chain of custody can undermine its reliability and lead to acquittal, as demonstrated in this case. The ruling also highlights that hostile testimony from the prosecutrix places a heavier burden on the prosecution to produce unimpeachable corroborative evidence. Above all, the judgment reinforces the principle that convictions, especially in sensitive POCSO cases, must rest on substantive, reliable and corroborated evidence rather than on flawed or compromised scientific reports.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT
