The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has acquitted a man convicted in a rape and murder case, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances and the integrity of the DNA evidence relied upon against him.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti found that the prosecution had failed to establish the proper chain of custody of the biological samples, with the Malkhana-in-charge, the person who transported the samples to the FSL and the DNA expert not examined. The Court held that where conviction substantially rests on scientific evidence, strict proof of the integrity of samples is essential.
The Court also declined to rely on a supplementary DNA report produced during the appeal, observing that accepting it would require remanding the matter for examination of the scientific expert and further proceedings under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Since the appellant had already undergone approximately 14 years in custody, such a course would cause serious prejudice. It was in this context that the Court observed that “the prosecution cannot, act on ‘my life my rules’ principle.”
The Bench further found that the last-seen evidence and recoveries did not inspire confidence and that the DNA evidence, without a properly established chain of custody and corroborating circumstances, could not conclusively connect the appellant with the offence. The conviction was therefore set aside and the appellant was acquitted by extending the benefit of doubt.
Importantly, given the wider ramifications of the lapses in handling scientific evidence, the High Court directed the Director General of Prosecution, Uttar Pradesh, to issue appropriate administrative instructions/circulars to all Public Prosecutors and prosecuting officers to ensure strict compliance with the judgment’s observations and guidelines. It further directed that copies of the judgment be sent to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh, to ensure strict adherence to DNA chain-of-custody requirements and the Supreme Court’s directions in Attavellai v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 845.
