The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that a conviction cannot rest solely on a DNA report unless the prosecution establishes an unbroken chain of custody and produces the expert who conducted the analysis. This ruling clarifies the evidentiary threshold for forensic evidence in homicide cases, directly impacting how prosecutors must present scientific proof in trials.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Sagar Singhal, was convicted under Sections 302/34, 201 IPC and Sections 25(1-B)(B) and 25 of the Arms Act for the murder of Dheeraj Singh. The prosecution’s case hinged on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a knife allegedly used in the crime and a subsequent DNA match linking the appellant to bloodstains on the weapon.
Procedural History
- 2017: FIR No. 464/2017 registered after Dheeraj Singh’s body was found with sharp weapon injuries.
- Trial Court: Convicted the appellant based on DNA report, recovery memo, and witness testimonies.
- Appeal: Appellant challenged conviction, arguing reliance on DNA evidence without expert testimony or proof of sample integrity.
- I.A. No. 12723/2025: Filed under Section 430 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking suspension of sentence and bail pending appeal.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought suspension of his life sentence and bail, contending that his conviction was legally unsustainable due to defective forensic evidence.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a DNA report can form the sole basis for conviction under Section 293 of the CrPC when the expert who conducted the test is not examined and the chain of custody for the sample is not proven.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 SCC OnLine SC 773), arguing that the Supreme Court had held that DNA evidence cannot be accepted merely because it is exhibited by the Investigating Officer. He further cited Prakash v. State of M.P. to show that similar convictions had been set aside for lack of expert testimony and failure to prove safe custody of biological samples. He emphasized that Section 293 CrPC permits presumptive admissibility only if foundational requirements are met, which were absent here.
For the Respondent/State
The State countered that the conviction was not based solely on the DNA report. It highlighted the recovery of the knife through independent witnesses PW-10 and PW-11, and the testimony of PW-21, the Investigating Officer, who testified to the proper handling and dispatch of the sample. The State argued that no cross-examination challenged the custody chain, and therefore, the presumption under Section 293 CrPC stood unchallenged.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the applicability of Karandeep Sharma and found it distinguishable. In that case, the Supreme Court had invalidated a conviction because the prosecution failed to prove that the biological sample was stored securely in the Malkhana and that no tampering occurred. The Court noted that in the present case, the Investigating Officer (PW-21) testified to the proper procedure for sample collection, sealing, and forwarding to the lab. Crucially, the defense did not cross-examine him on custody lapses.
"In the present case, no such question was raised to the Investigating Officer regarding the safe custody of the sample /knife in the Malkhana etc."
The Court further observed that the recovery of the weapon was corroborated by two independent witnesses, and the DNA match was not the sole pillar of conviction. The judgment in Prakash was also distinguished because that case involved no recovery of the weapon or independent corroboration. The Court emphasized that Section 293 CrPC does not dispense with the need for foundational proof - it merely allows presumptive admissibility when the procedural chain is intact. Since the prosecution established that chain, and the defense failed to rebut it, the conviction remained valid.
The Verdict
The appellant’s prayer for suspension of sentence and bail was dismissed. The Court held that DNA evidence, when supported by an unbroken chain of custody and unchallenged procedural testimony, can sustain a conviction even without direct expert examination, provided other corroborative evidence exists.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Chain of Custody Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now rigorously challenge the custody trail of forensic samples during cross-examination.
- Failure to cross-examine on Malkhana logs, sealing procedures, or transfer records waives the right to later contest sample integrity.
- Prosecutors must call the Investigating Officer who handled the sample as a witness, even if the lab expert is unavailable.
Corroboration Elevates Forensic Evidence
- A DNA match alone is insufficient, but when paired with recovery testimony and absence of contradictory evidence, it becomes decisive.
- Defense strategies must shift from attacking the report’s validity to exposing procedural gaps in handling.
- Courts will now treat Section 293 CrPC as a procedural shortcut, not a substitute for foundational proof.
Bail Denial Reflects Strength of Conviction
- Where the conviction rests on credible forensic and corroborative evidence, courts are unlikely to grant interim relief pending appeal.
- Applications under Section 430 BNS must now address not just delay or hardship, but the legal robustness of the conviction itself.
