Supreme Court Frees Man on Death Row, Sets New Protocols for DNA Evidence

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man sentenced to death penalty for killing a young man and his girlfriend in Tamil Nadu's Theni in 2011 owing to faulty investigation, including lapse in handling DNA evidence, conduction of post-mortem examinations and test identification parade in the case.

While allowing an appeal filed by Kattavellai @ Devakar, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta has held, the chain of circumstantial evidence did not point to a singular hypothesis, that is the guilt of the accused, ruling out his innocence or involvement of none else in the crime.

Court has issued a slew of directions to be followed across the country in handling DNA evidence and also emphasised the need for legislature to consider compensation in such cases where accused are suffering due to long period of incarceration.

In the instant case, the appellant allegedly killed one Ezhil Muthalvan and his girlfriend at Suruli Falls, a popular meeting point for friends and lovers, on May 14, 2011 for the purpose of committing robbery of jewellery and money.

Top Court found that the postmortem of the deceased persons was conducted at the spot of the crime without due regard to the possibility of contamination, effect of such examination being conducted in the open, etc. "None of the Courts below have found this to be objectionable; Possibility of ruling out the involvement of third party in the crime", the Supreme Court noted.

It also noted the DNA evidence collected had been rendered unusable, as it suffered from various shortcomings in as much as there was large amount of unexplained delay; the chain of custody cannot be established; possibility of contamination cannot be ruled out etc.

Holding that the lack of a common procedure to be followed in dealing with DNA evidence, is concerning, the bench has issued the following directions: 

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. Here only we may clarify that 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. Throughout, the requisite efforts be made to preserve the samples as per the requirement corresponding to the nature of the sample taken.

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 Directors General of Police of all the States have been asked to prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register and all other documentation directed above and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction as may be required.

Police Academies of the States have also been 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 these directions.

Case Title: Kattavellai @ Devakar vs. State of Tamil Nadu