Supreme Court: Under which circumstances DNA/ FSL Report becomes unreliable?

II. RECOVERY OF BLOOD-STAINED SHIRT

34. The second incriminating article recovered at the instance of the Appellant-Pooranmal was the blood-stained shirt which upon being analysed at the FSL purportedly gave a positive test for the presence of the same blood group (O) as that of the deceased-Aruna. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW.22), it transpires that the recovery of the shirt was effected in furtherance of the disclosure statement of the Appellant-Pooranmal (Ex. P-43). The recovery memo of the shirt was proved as (Ex. P-9).

35. We may observe that the Appellant-Pooranmal herein was a free bird since the day of incident i.e. from intervening night of 2nd and 3rd March, 2010 until 4th March, 2010, when he came to be formally arrested in connection with the present case, after being implicated by the co-convict Ladu Lal. The recovery memo (Ex. P-9) indicates that the Appellant-Pooranmal had meticulously concealed the shirt in an iron box and when the same was recovered, it was bearing blood stains. To our mind, it is highly improbable and unnatural that the Appellant-Pooranmal, who was a free bird, would have taken such great pains to conceal the shirt so meticulously rather than simply destroying it by burning. Furthermore, even if the Appellant-Pooranmal was desirous of preserving the shirt, all that was required to obliterate the blood stains was to wash the same. Hence, we are of the firm view that the recovery of the shirt is totally unreliable.

36. The recovery of the shirt was held to be incriminating based on the FSL report (Ex. P-49) as per which the blood stains on the shirt tested positive for the presence of O blood group being the same as that of the deceased-Aruna. For treating the FSL report (Ex. P-49) to be admissible, the prosecution would have to prove the complete chain of custody establishing the sanctity of the sealed articles right from the time of the seizure till the time they reached the FSL. In this regard, we would like to refer to the evidence of the following witnesses:

a. Mathura Singh (P.W.19)

37. Mathura Singh (PW.19), the Head Constable in-charge of the malkhana at Police Station Bijolia, stated that on 6th March, 2010 the Investigating Officer (PW.22) deposited blood-stained tissues and shirt in a sealed cloth bag. An entry to this effect was made in the malkhana register at Serial No. 227. On 7th March, 2010, the Investigating Officer (PW.22) deposited a sealed bag containing 46 notes of Rs. 1,000/- each, totalling Rs. 46,000/-. The witness (PW.19) stated that these articles, which also included the articles/samples recovered from the crime scene and the t-shirt recovered at the instance of the co-convict Ladu Lal, bearing marks A, B, C, L, M (totalling five), were forwarded with constable Surender Singh (PW.16) to SP office Bhilwara on 15th March, 2010 for being deposited at the FSL accompanied by requisite documents. However, because the FSL forwarding letter was not yet prepared, the said articles were returned and handed back to said witness (PW.19) who redeposited the same in the malkhana with an endorsement made in the malkhana register (Ex. P-37).

38. These very articles were again taken out from the malkhana on 18th March, 2010 and handed over to Surender Singh (PW.16) for delivery to FSL. Surender Singh (PW.16) proceeded to Udaipur and deposited the samples at the FSL on 19th March, 2010. He thereafter returned on 20th March, 2010 along with the receipt evidencing such deposit.

39. The witness (PW.19) was confronted with the malkhana entry in his cross-examination and stated as below:

It is wrong to say that I had given the material to Surendra Singh on 12.3.10 for taking to F.S.L. and that due to some shortage in it, the material were returned on 15.3.l0. Ex.D.3 The copy of the Malkhana which was attached with the challan in the file, in the C-D part of which it is written that the material were sent on 12.3.10 is wrong.

b. Surendra Singh (P.W.16)

40. The Carrier Constable, Surender Singh (PW.16), emphatically stated that he carried the malkhana articles to the FSL on 18th March, 2010, deposited them at the FSL, Udaipur on 19th March, 2010 and brought back the receipt. In his cross-examination, the witness (PW.16) stated that he did not recollect taking the same articles to the S.P. office on 12th March, 2010. He was confronted with the malkhana register (Ex. D-3), which records that he had been handed the samples on 12th March, 2010 and had attempted to deposit them at the S.P. Office on 15th March, 2010. However, he feigned ignorance as to the said entry recorded in the official document (Ex.D-3).

41. On a holistic appreciation of the evidence of these two witnesses, it becomes clear that there is a grave discrepancy regarding the safe-keeping/chain of custody of the muddamal articles. It is clearly discernible from the evidence of Mathura Singh (PW.19) that the muddamal articles were sent out of the police station prior to 18th March, 2010, to be precise on 15th March, 2010, but the same were returned from the FSL because of some defects. The precise reason for return of the muddamal articles is not forthcoming in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The Carrier Constable (PW.16) categorically denied having carried the samples on any date prior to 18th March, 2010.

42. The entry made in the malkhana register (Ex. D-3) with which both the witnesses were confronted, completely demolishes the versions of PW.19 and PW.16. In this entry, it is clearly recorded that the muddamal articles were forwarded to the FSL on 12th March, 2010. Utter failure of the prosecution to disclose as to the reasons for which the samples were returned from the FSL breaches the unbroken chain of custody mandatorily required to prove the safe keeping of the muddamal articles.

43. In Karandeep Sharma alias Razia alias Raju v. State of Uttarakhand   MANU/SC/0446/2025, this Court emphasised that for a DNA/FSL report to be acceptable and reliable, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody and demonstrate that the samples remained duly sealed and untampered throughout, and held as follows:

54. In order to make the DNA report acceptable, reliable and admissible, the prosecution would first be required to prove the sanctity and chain of custody of the samples/articles right from the time of their preparation/collection till the time they reached the FSL. For this purpose, the link evidence would have to be established by examining the concerned witness.

55. Evidently, there is not even a semblance of evidence on record to satisfy the Court that the samples/articles collected from the dead body of the child-victim and those collected from the Appellant which were later forwarded to the FSL were properly sealed or that the same remained in a self-same condition right from the time of the seizure till they reached the FSL. No witness from the FSL was examined by the prosecution to prove that the samples/articles were received in a sealed condition. Hence, there is every possibility of the samples being tampered/manipulated by the police officers so as to achieve a favourable result from the FSL, thereby, inculpating the Appellant in the crime.

44. In view of the analysis of evidence made above, we are of the firm view that the requisite link evidence essential to prove the safe-keeping and sanctity of the muddamal articles is lacking and the chain of custody has been breached beyond reprieve, thereby, making the FSL report (Ex. P-49) redundant and a worthless piece of paper.

45. Moreover, this Court in Allarakha Habib Memon v. State of Gujarat   MANU/SC/0856/2024 : 2024:INSC:590 : (2024) 9 SCC 546, expounded that even if the FSL report establishes that the blood group detected on the article recovered at the instance of the Accused matches that of the deceased, such circumstance by itself is not sufficient to link the said Accused with the crime. This Court observed as follows:

42. The trial court as well as the High Court heavily relied upon the FSL reports (Exts. 111-115) for finding corroboration to the evidence of the eyewitnesses and in drawing a conclusion regarding culpability of the Appellants for the crime. We may reiterate that the testimony of the so-called eyewitnesses has already been discarded above by holding the same to be doubtful. Thus, even presuming that the FSL reports (Exts. 111-115) conclude that the blood group found on the weapons recovered at the instance of the Accused matched with the blood group of the deceased, this circumstance in isolation, cannot be considered sufficient so as to link the Accused with the crime.

43. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan [Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan,   MANU/SC/0795/2011 : 2011:INSC:487 : (2011) 11 SCC 724 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 473], wherein this Court held that sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the Accused. The relevant portion is extracted hereinbelow: (SCC p. 730, para 19)

19. The AB blood group which was found on the clothes of the deceased does not by itself establish the guilt of the Appellant unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the Appellants. None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution could establish that fact. The blood found on the sword recovered at the instance of Mustkeem was not sufficient for test as the same had already disintegrated. At any rate, due to the reasons elaborated in the following paragraphs, the fact that the traces of blood found on the deceased matched those found on the recovered weapons cannot ipso facto enable us to arrive at the conclusion that the latter were used for the murder.

(Emphasis supplied)

46. Thus, even if the FSL report (Ex. P-49) shows that the blood found on the shirt allegedly recovered at the instance of the Appellant-Pooranmal matches that of the deceased-Aruna, such finding would by itself not be incriminating in the absence of other cogent and corroborative evidence completing the chain of circumstances.

Ratio: Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report – Chain of Custody – Sanctity of Samples. For an FSL report to be reliable, the prosecution must prove an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to laboratory - In this case, contradictions between the Malkhana In-charge and Carrier Constable regarding the dates the samples were sent and returned from the FSL (due to unspecified "defects") breached the chain of custody – Noted that even if blood groups match, this circumstance in isolation cannot link the accused to the crime without other cogent evidence.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1266 of 2026 

Decided On: 10.03.2026

Pooranmal Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 217,MANU/SC/0213/2026

Print Page

Bombay HC: What is importance of rule of chain of custody while appreciating DNA Evidence?

[VI] In Ananda Vs. The State of Maharashtra; MANU/MH/3781/2024 : 2024:BHC-AUG:11669-DB, one of the evidence was in the nature of DNA reports and it is observed as under :

"39. The question is, based on the DNA reports, whether the conviction and/or sentence passed by the trial court would be sustainable. We have gone through the impugned judgment. The trial court has relied on the evidence of each and every witness. It also relied on the evidence of the medical officer who collected blood of the appellant for DNA analysis, even in breach of protocol in that regard. The reason assigned for relying on the said evidence is that the said witness is uninterested and independent one. Before appreciating the evidence relating to DNA, we must have a look at the guidelines for collection, storage and transportation of the crime- scene DNA samples. Those have been placed on record by learned counsel for the appellant. Item No.10 therein speaks of maintaining the chain of custody. It describes what chain of custody means. Same reads as under:-

10. Maintaining the chain of custody:

• Chain of custody is a process used to maintain and document the chronological history of the evidence.

• A `chain of custody' document should be maintained which should include name or initials of the individual collecting the evidence, each person or entity subsequently having custody of it, dated the items were collected or transferred, agency and case number, victim's or suspect's name and the brief description of the item.

Those were the guidelines issued by The Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. PW 18 Vaishali admitted in cross-examination that the C.FS.L., Chandigarh and Hyderabad are best in India."

18. The relevant observations from the judgment in Kattavellai @ Devakar (supra) are reproduced as under :

DNA- A NECISSITATED ADDENDUM:

43. As we have discussed earlier in this judgment, the DNA evidence collected has been rendered unusable. It suffers from various shortcomings in as much as there is large amount of unexplained delay; the chain of custody cannot be established; possibility of contamination cannot be ruled out etc. 

44. This lack of a common procedure to be followed, is concerning. As such, we issue the following directions which shall be followed henceforth, in all cases where DNA Evidence is involved:

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 shall 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.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 821 of 2022, Criminal Application No. 3125 of 2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 821 of 2022

Ganesh Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Neeraj P. Dhote, J.

Decided On: 13.10.2025

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:28711,MANU/MH/6676/2025.

Print Page