Securing the Links: A Framework for Chain of Custody in Indian Courts

Introduction

The chain of custody is a fundamental mechanism for establishing the authenticity of evidence within the judicial process. Despite its significance, Indian courts have yet to develop and articulate a standardised approach to addressing issues related to the chain of custody. The absence of such a standard has led to inconsistencies in the judicial assessment of admissibility of evidence, particularly in cases where the chain of custody is either incomplete or subject to dispute.

This article aims to fill this critical gap by proposing a comprehensive standard to guide courts in determining the admissibility of evidence in situations where the chain of custody has been compromised. The discussion begins with an elucidation of the concept of the chain of custody, emphasising its indispensable role in the legal process. Following this, the article critically examines the current practices of Indian courts, revealing the lack of a clearly defined standard for evaluating evidence under such circumstances. Recognising the need for reform, the article advances a specific test that courts can employ to assess the admissibility of evidence when the integrity of the chain of custody is in question.

Understanding the chain of custody

The chain of custody is a foundational legal principle that demands meticulous documentation of the control, transfer, and disposition of objects relevant to a case. The chain of custody, must contain essential details, including the name or initials of the individual who initially collects the evidence, the identities of all subsequent custodians, the dates on which the items were collected or transferred, the corresponding agency and case number, the names of the victim or suspect, and a brief description of the item.¹

The significance of maintaining a well-documented chain of custody lies in its ability to safeguard the integrity and reliability of evidence.² By ensuring transparency throughout the processes of collection, handling, and storage, the chain of custody ensures, first, that the evidence presented in court is identical to what was originally collected from the crime scene, and second, that the evidence has remained in substantially the same condition throughout each transfer.³ Consequently, the chain of custody acts as a vital safeguard against the introduction of tainted or tampered evidence.

Judges base their determinations of a defendant’s guilt solely on the evidence presented in court. A comprehensive chain of custody is indispensable in safeguarding against evidence tampering, which could otherwise lead to judicial decisions being based on compromised evidence. Such compromises would gravely undermine the credibility of the judicial system. Therefore, ensuring a proper chain of custody is a critical responsibility in the administration of justice.

Within the Indian legal framework, objects relevant to a case are not classified as evidence per se, as the legal system does not recognise a distinct category of “real evidence”.⁴ Instead, these objects are regarded as facts that must be proven through oral or documentary evidence.⁵ Although not directly classified as evidence, the reliability of the evidence presented through oral or documentary means is heavily dependent on the authenticity of the objects in question. This dependency underscores the indispensable role of a secure chain of custody. Therefore, it is imperative that a meticulous record is maintained for each object, from the moment of its collection to its presentation in court.

Judicial perspectives on the chain of custody in India

The chain of custody is a critical factor in determining the admissibility of evidence, a principle that has been consistently underscored in various judgments by Indian courts. In Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court thoroughly highlighted the importance of the chain of custody while acquitting an accused in a rape trial.⁶ In this case, the integrity of the chain of custody was compromised due to the lack of clear documentation identifying who collected the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) samples from the accused, coupled with an unexplained delay in sending the samples for examination.⁷ The Court emphasised that the chain of custody is essential to the credibility of evidence and concluded that the DNA report could not be relied upon due to the broken chain of custody.⁸

Similarly, in Ashit Biswas v. State of W.B., the Calcutta High Court, while overturning the conviction of an accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS)⁹, noted significant discrepancies in witness statements regarding the chain of custody of the seized articles.¹⁰ The Court held that these discrepancies severed the connection between the articles seized at the crime scene and those produced in court during the trial, rendering the case of prosecution entirely unreliable.¹¹

Despite these judicial pronouncements, which highlight the importance of a robust chain of custody for the admissibility of evidence, the Indian legal system lacks a consistently applied standard to support this principle. This inconsistency has, at times, led to the admission of evidence even when there is a break in the chain of custody, thereby potentially undermining the significance of maintaining an unbroken chain in legal proceedings.

In Mustak v. State of Gujarat, a significant discrepancy in the chain of custody was brought to the court’s attention.¹² The defence pointed out that the bullet, which was removed by a doctor and handed over to a nurse, had no subsequent record, and the investigating officer (IO) could not recall whether the bullet was collected in a sealed condition.¹³ Despite these clear gaps in the chain of custody, the Court dismissed the concerns, reasoning that it is unreasonable to expect the police or the surgeon to recall minute details, especially when there is a considerable time-gap between the incident and the trial.¹⁴ The Court’s decision to overlook these discrepancies in the chain of custody suggests a potential ignorance of the possibility of tampering before the bullet was sent for analysis. This approach is fundamentally unsound, as it undermines the integrity of the evidence.

A similar approach was observed in Manoj v. State of M.P., where the chain of custody of a bullet extracted from the victim was also inadequately proven.¹⁵ The doctor who extracted the bullet did not mention sealing the bullet.¹⁶ However, the police officer collected a sealed bullet from the hospital but there was no record of who sealed the bullet or when it was done.¹⁷ Despite these significant gaps in the chain of custody, the Court still placed substantial reliance on the ballistics report, dismissing the doubts raised about the manner of seizure. The Court reasoned that the doctor initially kept the bullet in safe custody at the hospital until it was retrieved by the police officer.¹⁸ However, the Court failed to address the critical missing link in the chain of evidence. This oversight suggests that the Court did not adequately analyse the admissibility of the evidence, thereby potentially accepting inauthentic evidence.

The judiciary’s failure to adequately consider the chain of custody is not confined to cases involving shootings but extends to other offenses, including rape. In Shatrughna Baban Meshram v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court itself recognised the critical importance of the chain of custody for the credibility of evidence.¹⁹ Nonetheless, this case presented a clear discrepancy concerning the chain of custody with respect to the clothing of the accused.²⁰ At the time of the arrest, no blood was observed on the accused’s clothing, and the investigating officer (IO) conceded that nothing suspicious was found on the accused.²¹ Furthermore, when the accused was examined by the medical professional, no traces of blood were detected.²² Despite these inconsistencies, the Court dismissed concerns regarding the potential tampering of evidence, reasoning that the IO’s admission did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that no bloodstains existed. The Court noted that the clothing was sent for examination at the earliest opportunity but failed to adequately address the gap in the chain of custody.²³ This oversight raises significant doubts about the authenticity of the evidence and undermines the reliability of the judicial process in this instance.

These cases elucidate that, although the significance of a complete chain of custody for admissibility of evidence has been repeatedly emphasised by the judiciary, it is not consistently adhered to. This is likely due to the lack of a clearly defined standard for assessing the admissibility of evidence when there are gaps in the chain. At present, the admissibility of evidence with missing links in the chain of custody is left to the discretion of the court. This discretionary approach risks the admission of evidence that may have been compromised, thereby undermining the administration of justice. To rectify this issue, there is an urgent need for a standardised framework to guide courts in scrutinising the admissibility of evidence when chain of custody is not fully established.

Proposed framework for assessing admissibility

To implement meaningful reform and establish a clear standard, it is first essential to delineate the scope of the chain of custody, which involves defining its commencement and conclusion.

There is a viewpoint that the chain of custody should only begin once the object has been seized by Law Enforcement, arguing that the Government cannot be held responsible for an object not under its control.²⁴ However, this perspective fundamentally misunderstands the purpose of the chain of custody. The primary objective of this rule is not to attribute accountability to law enforcement but to ensure the reliability of the evidence.²⁵ Evidence could be tampered with before being taken into custody by law enforcement and it remains compromised in terms of authenticity. This can be seen from Manoj case as highlighted above where there was a potential of tampering the bullet before it was collected by the police.²⁶ This necessitates that the chain of custody begins at the moment the object was involved in the crime.

As for the conclusion of the chain of custody, a bifurcated approach has been suggested: for certain objects, the chain should extend until the formal presentation in trial, as their identification occurs through oral testimony during proceedings.²⁷ Whereas, for objects where analysis constitutes the primary evidence, the chain may be deemed complete at the stage of analysis.²⁸ Nevertheless, it is imperative that the prosecution maintains custody of the object until formal presentation of evidence in the trial, regardless of the nature of the evidence, as the defendant may request retesting of the analysed object.²⁹ Furthermore, under the Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023³⁰, the Presiding Judge is empowered to order the production of the object at any stage of the proceedings to discover or obtain proof of relevant facts, as stipulated in Section 168.³¹ Consequently, the chain of custody must be preserved until the formal presentation of evidence in court.

Consequently, the chain of custody should commence at the crime scene and continue, at the very least, until the evidence is formally presented in court. In situations where any link in this chain of custody is found to be missing, it becomes imperative for the courts to conduct a rigorous examination of the admissibility of the evidence, rather than dismissing concerns regarding potential tampering. This careful scrutiny is crucial to ensure that the determination of the court is based solely on authentic and reliable evidence.

Regarding the test for examining the admissibility of evidence when a link in the chain of custody is missing, the courts should assess the nature of the object.³² If the object possesses distinctive features that render it easily identifiable, such as a particular design, witness testimony identifying the object in court as the one found at the crime scene may suffice, ensuring that the evidence presented is indeed the same as that discovered at the crime scene. In such cases, the likelihood of admissibility increases.

Conversely, if the relevance of the object is contingent upon subsequent analysis, mere identification at the scene is inadequate.³³ The chain of custody must establish that the item analysed in a laboratory is identical to the one seized. In this scenario, as any missing link in the chain of custody affects admissibility.

Moreover, the court should evaluate the likelihood of tampering.³⁴ For instance, if an object was sealed by the initial handler and remained sealed until its presentation in court, a missing link might not indicate tampering, and the evidence could be admissible.

Furthermore, the Court should ascertain whether the object has undergone any changes.³⁵ If the object remains in substantially the same condition, this increases the likelihood of its admissibility. However, if the object has undergone alterations, the court must assess whether these changes have materially affected its evidentiary value.³⁶ For example, slight damage to clothing might not diminish its probative value if key characteristics, such as bloodstains, are preserved and documented.

Thus, in determining the admissibility of evidence with a broken chain of custody, courts should consider the nature of the object, the likelihood of tampering, and any changes the item has undergone. A holistic consideration of these factors will facilitate a more systematic and informed decision-making process regarding evidence admissibility, thereby upholding the integrity of the judicial process.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the chain of custody serves as a fundamental safeguard in ensuring the authenticity and reliability of evidence within the judicial process. Despite its recognised importance, the absence of a standardised approach in Indian courts for addressing gaps in the chain of custody poses a significant risk to the integrity of judicial determinations. This paper has underscored the need for a comprehensive and clearly defined standard to guide courts in assessing the admissibility of evidence, particularly when the chain of custody is incomplete or disputed. The proposed framework emphasises that the chain of custody should begin at the crime scene and extend, at a minimum, until the evidence is formally presented in court. Moreover, the paper has advocated for a nuanced approach in determining the admissibility of evidence when there are gaps in the chain of custody. Courts should assess the nature of the object, the likelihood of tampering, and whether any changes have occurred to the object that might impact its evidentiary value. While these reforms could enhance judicial fairness and reliability, further research is needed to assess their practical implementation within the judiciary.