The Prosecutor has not examined the carrier, who had deposited the samples with R.F.S.L., Amravati. The Investigating Officer did not produce on record the extract of the Malkhana register. Malkhana in-charge was not examined. It is to be noted that the samples had been collected on or before 6th April, 2016. The samples had been forwarded to the R.F.S.L., Amravati, vide Exh.106 on 11th April, 2016. The prosecution has failed to place on record the evidence with regard to the custody of the samples and the care taken to preserve the samples during this period. If the carrier had been examined, then he would have highlighted the relevant aspects. The CA reports, in this case, are very important. The CA reports had been tendered in the evidence at the time of the examination of the Investigating Officer (PW-10). The learned Judge did not pass a specific order under Section 293 of the Cr. P.C. and admitted these reports in evidence. The CA reports are very important. On the basis of the CA reports, a case is sought to be made out that the blood sample and the semen samples matched with the blood samples of the appellants. {Para 24}
26. The Prosecutor failed to examine the Chemical Analyzer, Amravati, to prove the contents of the CA reports. Similarly, he has failed to examine the DNA Expert from R.F.S.L., Nagpur. It is to be noted that DNA evidence is a scientific opinion. It has to be proved like any other document. The prosecution has to establish the link by adducing cogent and concrete evidence from the time of the collection of the samples till the samples are finally analysed by the F.S.L. In this case, the carrier has not been examined. The Chemical Analyzer has not been examined. Similarly, the DNA Expert has not been examined.
27. In this case, the important witnesses have not been examined. There is no evidence with regard to the packaging, storage, handling, and preservation of the samples to rule out possibility of tampering or contamination. Perusal of the record would show that there is no reason for non-examination of these witnesses. The learned Judge has placed implicit reliance on the CA reports and the DNA report. The complete DNA report is not part of the record. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Judge that the DNA report fully corroborates the testimony of the prosecutrix is without application of mind. It is to be noted that it was the duty of the learned Judge at least to question the Prosecutor with regard to the evidence to prove the contents of these reports. The record shows that the learned Judge, while recording the examination-in-chief of the Investigating Officer, exhibited the CA reports and the DNA report. I fail to understand as to how the Investigating Officer could be the author of the CA reports and the DNA report. The evidence of the Investigating Officer could not be said to be legally admissible evidence to prove the contents of the CA reports and the DNA report. The evidence of the Investigating Officer could be relevant to the extent of the procedural part with regard to forwarding of the samples, preservation of the samples, and the receipt of the DNA report. In such a case, the learned Judge was required to pass a separate order under Section 293 of the Cr. P.C. and admit such scientific evidence in the case. It is to be noted that the helpless prosecutrix had no control over this. The acceptance of the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the appellants, highlighting the drawbacks and lacunas, would cause miscarriage of justice. The helpless prosecutrix would be deprived of her right to get justice. In my view, this is a very serious matter.
28. Before parting with this subject, I must mention that while admitting the CA reports and the DNA report, without examining the Chemical Analyzer and the DNA Expert, the Court has to pass an appropriate order. First and foremost, the learned Presiding Officer shall insist for the examination of the Chemical Analyzer and the DNA Expert to prove the contents of the reports. The examination of the Chemical Analyzer and the DNA expert, in such a case, can take care of the custody, preservation, and handling of the samples from the time of the receipt till the final analysis of the samples. In my view, this is a very vital flaw in the case of the prosecution, which has been crept in on account of the casual and careless approach of the Prosecutor and the learned Presiding Officer.
In the High Court of Bombay
(Before G.A. Sanap, J.)
Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2022
Puranlal Sakaru Dhurve. Vs State of Maharashtra,
Criminal Appeal No. 155 of 2022 and Criminal Appeal No. 352 of 2022
Decided on September 30, 2024
Citation: 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3437.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
Print Page
