Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal challenging conviction and sentence of death penalty to the appellant (convict) which was affirmed by Madras High Court via the impugned judgment; the 3 Judge Bench of Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ., emphasised need of a legislative framework to compensate accused persons who have been suffering long incarcerations only for them to be cleanly acquitted.
The Court further took strict note of the faulty investigation and especially the treatment of the DNA evidence in ways that rendered the samples useless for the purposes of the case. Hence, the Court issued the following guidelines which must be followed in all cases where DNA Evidence is involved:
- The collection of DNA samples once made after due care and compliance of all necessary procedure including swift and appropriate packaging including- a) FIR number and date; b) Section and the statute involved therein; c) details of I.O., Police station; and d) requisite serial number shall be duly documented. The Court clarified that the absence of independent witnesses shall not be taken to be compromising to the collection of such evidence, but the efforts made to join such witnesses and the eventual inability to do so shall be duly put down in record.
- The Investigating Officer shall be responsible for the transportation of the DNA evidence to the concerned police station, or the hospital concerned. He shall also be responsible for ensuring that the samples so taken reach the concerned forensic science laboratory with dispatch and in any case not later than 48- hours from the time of collection. Should any extraneous circumstance present itself and the 48-hours timeline cannot be complied with, the reason for the delay shall be duly recorded in the case diary. Throughout, the requisite efforts be made to preserve the samples as per the requirement corresponding to the nature of the sample taken.
- In the time that the DNA samples are stored pending trial appeal etc., no package shall be opened, altered or resealed without express authorisation of the Trial Court acting upon a statement of a duly qualified and experienced medical professional to the effect that the same shall not have a negative impact on the sanctity of the evidence and with the Court being assured that such a step is necessary for proper and just outcome of the Investigation/Trial.
- Right from the point of collection to the logical end, i.e., conviction or acquittal of the accused, a Chain of Custody Register shall be maintained wherein each and every movement of the evidence shall be recorded with counter sign at each end thereof stating also the reason therefor. This Chain of Custody Register shall necessarily be appended as part of the Trial Court record. Failure to maintain the same shall render the I.O. responsible for explaining such lapse.
-
The Directors General of Police of all the States shall prepare sample forms of the Chain of Custody Register, and all other documentation directed above and ensure its dispatch to all districts with necessary instruction as may be required.
Background and Legal Trajectory:
The incident in question, relates to the unfortunate death of two young people in May 2011. The convict was said to have threatened 2 other persons and the victims to part with money and gold, which they refused. Such refusal, according to the prosecution led to him killing the victims. The bodies of the victims were found in a considerable decomposed state in a forest and certain relatives were brought in to conduct due identification of the bodies. The investigation in the matter commenced and post-mortem of the bodies was conducted.
Upon receiving information from one of the two persons (PW-5 and B, the other person who was not examined) who were also threatened by the convict to part with their money and gold, the Police arrested the convict. Upon such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession and effected recovery of certain material objects from his own residence as also that of his mother-in-law. Police also conducted a T.I. parade wherein PW-5 positively identified the convict. To establish its case, the prosecution examined 56 witnesses and exhibited 77 documents and 29 material objects. The convict pleaded his innocence but, however, did not examine any witnesses or lead any other evidence.
Charges were framed against the convict in 2013 under Sections 302, 376, 392 r/w 397 IPC and (3)(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The Trial Court found the convict guilty of the offences under Section 302, 376 and 379, but declared not guilty under Section 392 and was given death penalty. Since the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was that of death by hanging the matter reached the High Court. Considering the evidence on record, the High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s verdict.
Aggrieved with the verdict, the convict thus appealed before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the facts and contentions, the Court had to consider whether the Trial Court and High Court were justified in handing down judgments of conviction for the offences, as alleged and in connection therewith sentencing the convict to death.
The Court noted that 56 witnesses were examined by the prosecution; however, it was pointed out that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime and the convict had been sentenced to the gallows on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
The Court deemed it fit to undertake the examination of each of the circumstances and of the testimonies by the witnesses, especially that of the Investigating Officers (IOs). The Court pointed out that testimony of PW-5, who was thew prosecution’s star witness, to be shaky. “Knowing both the victims, having seen them be threatened, finding them missing from everyday activity and even out of contact, and yet not even uttering so much as a whisper to anybody, is hard to conceive as reasonable”.
Taking note of the convict’s arrest, confession and recovery of allegedly incriminating articles, the Court pointed out that at the time of arrest, there was no independent witness. The Court found that there was an apparent lack of corroboration to any of the statements made by the convict and as such, the confessions were unreliable.
Vis-a-vis the DNA evidence, the Court noted that final DNA report as prepared by PW-34, he in his evidence did not mention when the samples were received by him or his office. Nor does he depose the conditions in which the sample was received. The Court questioned that why the vaginal swabs and semen sample were sent belatedly, where they properly stored, if the swabs were damaged, who shall be held responsible for the destruction of vital evidence.
The Court emphasised on the importance of DNA evidence and how it can impact a case in the event such evidence is not dealt with proper method. The Court stated that in the instant case, despite the presence of DNA evidence, it had to be discarded because proper methods and procedures were not followed in the collection, sealing, storage, and employment of the evidence in the course of the conviction.
The Court further could not ascribe any motive which might have led to the crime. The convict, due to various factors, had taken to crime and it was not the case of the prosecution that the said objects were taken by the convict and then misused or sold.
Vis-a-vis Test Identification Parade, the Court pointed out that the identity of the convict could not be sufficiently protected leading to its disclosure well before the TIP was conducted.
The Court further added that PW-5 in his testimony had stated that he knew both the victims, through B. She was obviously there at the time of the incident. B was the one who had informed PW-5 that D2 did not attend college the next day. Further, she was the one who told PW-5 that they had been murdered in suspicious circumstances which led the latter to go to the police. “Then, why she remained unexamined by the prosecution is a mystery. However, how it escaped the attention of both the Courts below that the statement was not on record, is surprising. She could have given essential testimony for the last seen theory to be applied to the present case”. There was lack of coordination between investigating agencies. B has not been arrayed as a witness, despite examination by PW-56 who was the person concerned at the CBCID. The other investigating officer did not examine her despite a clear link to the deceased persons and the star witness of the prosecution.
The Court strictly pointed out that the thread of faulty investigation was running throughout the case.
Conclusion and Decision:
Based on the afore-stated assessment, the Court held that none of the circumstances posited by the prosecution were found to be conclusively proved against the convict. The chain of circumstantial evidence in no way pointed to a singular hypothesis, that is the guilt of the convict, ruling out his innocence in the crime. As a result, the conviction of the convict was vacated, and he was directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.
Remarks on Compensation in case of Acquittal after Long Incarceration:
In it concluding remarks, the Court observed that in V. Senthil Balaji v. Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626, where the accused person had been in prolonged detention, the Court made some observations regarding Article 21 of the Constitution. Therein the Court had stated that “There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the accused after very long incarceration as an undertrial (…) In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation”.
The Court pointed out that the convict in the instant case has secured clean acquittal. The Court clarified that an approach for compensation for long incarceration can be adopted thereby the Court’s commitment to the constitutional guarantee of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court pointed out that in the instant case, the accused was taken into custody, and it is the judicial process that had taken such a long time to come to a conclusion. The worrying feature here is that the conviction had no legs to stand on whatsoever and yet the convict has been in custody for years.
Therefore, highlighting the injustice caused in the instant case, the Court stated that it is for the legislature to consider and decide on the aspect of compensation for long incarceration.
[Kattavellai v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1439, decided on 15-7-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Sanjay Karol
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant(s): Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Sreepriya K, Adv. Mr. A. Karthik, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. V Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv
Buy Constitution of India HERE
