The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted suspension of jail sentence to an appellant who has already served over seven years, holding that critical forensic and evidentiary lapses fatally undermine the prosecution’s circumstantial case. This ruling reinforces the non-negotiable requirement of procedural integrity in evidence collection, particularly in cases resting on DNA and last seen evidence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arises from the murder of a man found dead in a brick kiln on 13 October 2018. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, Golu @ Anand, was the last person seen with the deceased and later seized his trousers bearing the victim’s blood. The case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no eyewitnesses to the crime.
Procedural History
- 13 October 2018: Victim found dead; FIR registered under Section 302 and 120-B IPC
- Trial Court: Convicted the appellant based on last seen theory and DNA match from trousers
- 2021: Appeal filed before the High Court under CRA No. 853 of 2021
- 2025: Third application filed under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal
Relief Sought
The appellant seeks suspension of his remaining jail sentence, arguing that the appeal is pending since 2021, he has already served over seven years, and the prosecution’s evidence is fundamentally flawed.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether suspension of sentence under Section 430 of BNSS, 2023 can be granted when the prosecution’s case is marred by material lapses in the chain of custody of forensic evidence and unreliable last seen evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel argued that the prosecution failed to establish: (1) the seizure of the trousers was properly witnessed and documented; (2) the DNA sample was stored in a sealed container and sent promptly; and (3) the last seen evidence was credible, as the sole witness (P.W.5, the deceased’s wife) was not independent. He relied on Kattavellai v. State of Tamil Nadu to underscore the Supreme Court’s directives on forensic integrity.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the conviction was sound, citing P.W.5’s testimony and the DNA match. It argued that Kattavellai applied prospectively and could not invalidate a case tried before its pronouncement. The State maintained that minor procedural irregularities did not invalidate the overall case.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous review of the evidence and found the prosecution’s case fundamentally defective. It emphasized that circumstantial evidence must form an unbroken chain of probability, and any break renders the entire edifice untenable.
"The seizure of the trouser, blood sample creates doubt in our mind as per the testimony of P.W.15 (Shri D.K. Tiwari)."
The Court noted that P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, admitted the DNA sample was kept in an open container, not sealed, and was sent for analysis after a delay of three and a half months. This violated established protocols for preserving biological evidence. The Court further held that the trial court’s reliance on P.W.5’s testimony was misplaced, as she was a close relative and not an independent witness. The testimony of other witnesses on the last seen theory was disbelieved by the trial court itself.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that Kattavellai was not applicable retrospectively, stating: "The law on preservation of evidence and chain of custody is not a new doctrine but a long-standing principle of criminal jurisprudence. The burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution, and failure to meet it cannot be excused by delay or procedural laxity."
The Court also observed that the appellant had already served more than seven years in custody, with no clear timeline for final disposal of the appeal, making continued incarceration unjust.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Court held that suspension of sentence is warranted where the prosecution’s case is undermined by material lapses in evidence handling and unreliable circumstantial links. The appellant was released on bail upon depositing the fine and furnishing a bond of Rs. 50,000 with one surety, subject to his appearance before the High Court Registry on 30 April 2026.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Chain of Custody Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must challenge convictions where forensic samples are not sealed, logged, or transported promptly
- Any delay beyond 30 days in sending biological samples without justification invites judicial skepticism
- Prosecution must produce the custodian of evidence and prove continuous, unbroken custody
Last Seen Evidence Requires Independent Corroboration
- Testimony of close relatives cannot be the sole pillar of last seen theory
- Courts will not accept last seen evidence if other witnesses are disbelieved or inconsistent
- The theory must be supported by independent, credible testimony or corroborative material evidence
Suspension Pending Appeal Is Not a Privilege But a Right in Prolonged Detention
- Courts will grant suspension where accused has served a substantial portion of potential sentence
- Delay in appellate disposal, especially beyond five years, weighs heavily in favor of bail
- Procedural defects in evidence become grounds for interim relief even before final acquittal
