The High Court of Madhya Pradesh has set a critical precedent by suspending a life sentence under Section 302 IPC where the conviction rested exclusively on a DNA report, uncorroborated by expert testimony and tainted by procedural irregularities. This ruling reinforces that circumstantial evidence, however compelling, cannot sustain a conviction without rigorous scientific validation and adherence to evidentiary norms.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Akshay Sen, was convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based primarily on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution alleged that a knife recovered from his residence seven months after the incident was the murder weapon, with DNA matching the victim. The sole link to the appellant was a memorandum statement from a co-accused, Sachin, who was later acquitted by the trial court.
Procedural History
- 21 January 2016: Discovery of victim’s body; FIR registered against unknown persons
- Investigation phase: Knife seized from appellant’s home after seven months; no blood stains detected in seizure memo
- Trial court: Convicted appellant based on DNA report and co-accused’s statement
- Appeal pending: Appellant filed CRA No. 3239 of 2025 before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
- I.A. No. 13513/2025: Filed under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal
Relief Sought
The appellant sought suspension of his life sentence and release on bail during the pendency of his appeal, arguing that the conviction was legally unsustainable due to evidentiary flaws and procedural lapses.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained solely on a DNA report when no scientific expert has been examined to authenticate the report, and when the recovery of the alleged weapon is delayed, uncorroborated by seizure witnesses, and lacks forensic validation.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Counsel relied on Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati v. State of M.P. (2025 INHC 150), arguing that the Supreme Court has held that in cases where conviction hinges on DNA evidence, the prosecution must examine the scientific expert who conducted the analysis. He further contended that the seven-month delay in recovering the knife, absence of blood stains in the seizure memo, and failure to examine any seizure witness rendered the evidence unreliable. He emphasized that the appellant had been on bail throughout the trial without any misuse of liberty.
For the Respondent/State
The State defended the conviction on the ground that the DNA report was positive and therefore conclusive. It did not address the absence of expert testimony or the procedural defects in the seizure process, relying instead on the mere existence of a DNA match.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the evidentiary chain and found it fundamentally defective. It noted that the recovery of the knife after seven months was inherently improbable and lacked any credible explanation. The seizure memo, which is a critical document under Section 102 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, failed to record any blood stains, and no witness was examined to corroborate the recovery.
"The prosecution has not examined any seizure witness. That apart, no expert has been examined for the DNA Report."
The Court explicitly applied the principle from Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati, holding that DNA evidence alone, without expert testimony, cannot form the sole basis for conviction. It further observed that the conviction was further undermined by reliance on the memorandum statement of an acquitted co-accused, which is inadmissible as substantive evidence under Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court concluded that the trial court’s findings were not only unsupported by evidence but also violated the principle of reasonable doubt enshrined in Article 21.
The Verdict
The appellant won. The Court held that a conviction based solely on unverified DNA evidence and procedurally defective recovery cannot stand, and suspended the sentence pending appeal. The appellant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with one solvent surety.
What This Means For Similar Cases
DNA Evidence Requires Expert Corroboration
- Practitioners must now insist on the examination of forensic experts whenever DNA evidence is central to prosecution
- Merely producing a DNA report without expert testimony renders it inadmissible as conclusive proof
- Defense counsel should file applications under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act to compel production of expert witnesses
Delayed Recovery Undermines Credibility
- Seizures delayed beyond a reasonable time must be explained with compelling justification
- Failure to examine seizure witnesses or record physical characteristics (e.g., blood stains) in seizure memos will be viewed as fatal to the prosecution’s case
- Courts will treat such lapses as indicators of fabrication or negligence
Bail Pending Appeal Is Warranted Where Conviction Is Unsound
- Courts are now more willing to suspend sentences where the conviction is legally vulnerable, even in heinous offenses
- The appellant’s conduct on bail (no misuse) was a decisive factor
- This sets a precedent for granting bail in other cases where the conviction is based on weak or uncorroborated evidence
