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

Forensic Delay and the Duty of the Sessions Court: Judicial Control Over Missing Scientific Reports in Sessions Trials

Delay in receipt of a material scientific report can paralyse a sessions trial, weaken the truth-finding process, and undermine the constitutional expectation of speedy justice. Indian criminal procedure does not contemplate that the court should remain a silent spectator when a forensic report, especially one central to the prosecution case, is withheld or indefinitely delayed. The governing judicial approach is one of active case management: the court must insist on accountability, preserve trial momentum, and ensure that essential scientific evidence is brought on record within a reasonable time.

The doctrinal foundation

Print Page

Guide for Session Judges for appreciating evidence of CA Reports, FSL Report, DNA report and all scientific experts report in Sessions Trials

A forensic report often enters the courtroom with an aura of certainty. Once the Chemical Analyser or FSL states that blood matches, DNA corresponds, or a sample confirms a prosecution theory, the natural temptation is to treat the report as near-conclusive proof. The decision of the Allahabad High Court in Najeeruddin v. State of U.P. is a powerful reminder that criminal courts must resist that temptation. A forensic report may be on record, and may even be formally admissible under Section 293 CrPC, yet it may still be legally unsafe to rely upon if the prosecution has not proved the source material, the chain of connection, and the accused has not been confronted with the incriminating contents under Section 313 CrPC.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme court: Statement Of Accused is Inadmissible U/S 27 of Evidence Act If No New Fact Is Discovered Pursuant To Disclosure

 On a threadbare analysis of the entire record, we do not find that the prosecution examined any witness who had deposed about the link evidence/safe custody of the mudammal articles right from the time they were received at the police station and seized till the time the same reached the FSL. Hence, otherwise also, the FSL report(Exhibits 111-115) pales into insignificance. Investigating Officer(PW-18) deposed that he arrested the Accused persons. A detailed enquiry was made from all three Accused-Appellants, and they were examined for the injuries found on their bodies. Thereafter, all the Accused-Appellants conveyed their willingness to show the place of the offence and thereafter, panchnama as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared. Since the place of incident was also known to police, this disclosure is irrelevant. {Para 45}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2828-2829 of 2023 and 112 of 2024

Decided On: 08.08.2024

Allarakha Habib Memon and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0856/2024.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Supreme Court: The court should not rely on FSL report if prosecution has failed to prove chain of custody

 The trial Court as well as the High Court heavily relied upon the FSL reports(Exhibits 111-115) to hold that blood group found on the weapons of offence incriminated the Accused for the crime as the same matched with the blood group of the deceased. In this regard, it is suffice to say that the two weapons which were picked up by Demistalkumar(PW-12) from the place of occurrence were formally seized at the Anand Town Police Station around 2:30 am on 5th May, 2011. Only one of the panchas Mohammad Hussain(PW-5) was examined at the trial. The seizure panchnama(Exhibit -38) records that the three Accused who had inflicted deadly blows to the deceased with dagger, gupti and knife, threw away their weapons near the garden and fled away from the crime scene and that police personnel brought all the weapons to the police station. However, the panchnama(Exhibit P-38) does not bear the signatures of the police constable, Demistalkumar(PW-12) who admittedly collected the weapons from the crime scene and presented them to the police station. Thus, no credence can be given to seizure panchnama(Exhibit P-38) because it suffers from the lacuna of not being attested by the witness who had actually presented the weapons at the police station. In addition, thereto, we may further note that Demistalkumar(PW-12), the police constable who deposited the weapons at the police station, did not state in his evidence as to whom he had given the knife and the gupti which he picked up from the crime scene. These weapons were seized vide seizure panchnama(Exhibit-38) which was admittedly prepared at 2:30 am. However, the Police Constable, Demistalkumar(PW-12) stated that he reached the police station at about 9:15 pm and stayed there for only 20 minutes. These infirmities create a doubt on the very process of seizure of the weapons. {Para 42}

43. The trial Court as well as the High Court heavily relied upon the FSL reports(Exhibits 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(Exhibits 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. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the judgment of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan   MANU/SC/0795/2011 : 2011:INSC:487 : (2011) 11 SCC 724, 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:

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)

44. On a perusal of the deposition of the Investigating Officer(PW- 18), we find his evidence on the aspect of disclosure statements made by the Accused-Appellant leading to the recoveries to be totally perfunctory and unacceptable. The witness did not elaborate upon the words spoken by the Accused-Appellant at the time of making the disclosure statements.

45. On a threadbare analysis of the entire record, we do not find that the prosecution examined any witness who had deposed about the link evidence/safe custody of the mudammal articles right from the time they were received at the police station and seized till the time the same reached the FSL. Hence, otherwise also, the FSL report(Exhibits 111-115) pales into insignificance. Investigating Officer(PW-18) deposed that he arrested the Accused persons. A detailed enquiry was made from all three Accused-Appellants, and they were examined for the injuries found on their bodies. Thereafter, all the Accused-Appellants conveyed their willingness to show the place of the offence and thereafter, panchnama as per Section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared. Since the place of incident was also known to police, this disclosure is irrelevant. Search of the houses of the Accused-Appellant was undertaken in presence of the panch witnesses and a big knife was seized from the house of the Accused Mohmedfaruk @ Palak, vide panchnama(Exhibit-52).

46. Hence, we are of the firm view that neither the disclosure statements made by the Accused were proved as per law nor the same resulted into any discovery which could be accepted as incriminating inasmuch as the requisite link evidence was never presented by the prosecution so as to establish that the recovered articles remained in the self-safe condition from the date of the seizure till the same reached the FSL.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 2828-2829 of 2023 and 112 of 2024

Decided On: 08.08.2024

Allarakha Habib Memon and Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0856/2024.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether the court can release accused on default bail in NDPS Case if prosecution has filed chargesheet without report of FSL?

 It is no doubt correct that Hon’ble the Supreme Court and also a full Bench of this Court have held that a challan even if not accompanied by a report of the Chemical Examiner or of the expert cannot be said to be incomplete. However, it needs to be highlighted that the said cases did not pertain to an offence under the NDPS Act. A case under the NDPS Act can only survive in case the prosecution is able to establish that the article recovered is indeed a contraband and which can only be established on the basis of its chemical examination, which is normally got done through FSL established by the Government. In other words, the report of the FSL forms the foundation of the case of prosecution and in case the same is not there the entire case of prosecution falls to ground. {Para 9}

10. On the other hand, in other cases say any injury or hurt or murder case under IPC, even the ocular version coupled with some medical evidence or some other circumstantial evidence may suffice to bring home the guilt of the accused. Though, a report of an expert, if sought, pertaining to some blood stains or comparison of handwriting, ballistic report, could be helpful to establish the case of the prosecution for such offences under IPC or some other Acts but cannot be said to be indispensable in each and every case and even in the absence of such reports, the prosecution may well be able to establish its case. As such, the contention of the petitioner that the report of FSL form very foundation of the case of prosecution and is an integral part of the challan cannot be brushed aside.

11. As noticed above, there are some conflicting judgments of this Court and the matter stands referred to a Division Bench and is still

subjudice. In this context a reference may also be made to an order of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed on 9.11.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 8164-8166/2021 titled as Mohd. Arbaz and others Versus State of NCT of Delhi which has been cited by learned counsel for petitioner to contend that the matter as regards the challan inNDPS cases being incomplete on account of absence of FSL report is also being adjudicated by Hon’ble Apex Court. The said order dated 9.11.2022 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Arbaz’s case reads as follows :-

“In all these petitions the question that arises for consideration is

relating to the completeness of the charge sheet in accordance with law if the same is filed without the CFSL Report. The matter would require detailed consideration. In the meantime, all parties to complete their pleadings. For the present, though the issue of default bail is to be considered in the petitions since it would require some time, without reference to that aspect of the matter, keeping in view that the petitioners in SLP(Crl.) Nos. 6876- 6877/2022, SLP (Crl.) No. 532/2022 and SLP (Crl.)No. 5190/2022 are still in custody, we order that they be released on bail subject to the conditions to be imposed by the concerned trial courts. 

 In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana

At Chandigarh

CRR-1046-2022 (O&M)

Mukesh Pal @ Makha Vs  State of Haryana 

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Author: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . 

Date of Decision:- 29.11.2022

Print Page

Whether the court can quash prosecution against accused under Food safety Act if there no FSL report or expert report?

As seen from the material placed on record, there is no FSL or expert report to the effect that the substance seized is dangerous/hazardous to public health. Hence, it is pertinent to

state that continuation of proceedings in the subject C.C is nothing but abuse of process of law. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner/A2 in the subject case are liable to be quashed.

TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Vinod kumar Vyas Vs State of telangana

 THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8237 OF 2021

Date: 12.11.2021

Print Page

Supreme court directed where poisoning is suspected, immediately after post-mortem, viscera should be sent to FSL

Supreme Court: Taking note of the fact that in several cases where poisoning is suspected, the prosecuting agencies are not taking steps to obtain viscera report, the 2-judge bench of Hon’ble Ranjana Prakash Desai and J. Chelameswar, JJ directed the prosecuting agencies to send the viscera to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination immediately after the post-mortem and the FSL should then ensure that the viscera is examined immediately and report is sent to the investigating agencies/courts post haste. The Court said that the non-compliance of the said direction would empower the Criminal Courts to summon the concerned officer. Considering the tendency of the witnesses to turn hostile, the Court said that these scientific tests are of vital importance to a criminal case and the Investigating Officer, the Prosecutor and the Court should work in sync in order to cope up with such lapses. The Court gave the said direction upon noticing the fact that in the short span of 2 months, it was dealing with the third case where viscera report was not brought on record either due to inadvertence or with the intent to frustrate the prosecution.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Joshinder Yadav v. State of Bihar, Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2009, decided on January 20, 2014

Author: (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J.

 Citations: AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1043, 2014 (4) SCC 42,

Print Page