2024 PCrLJ 1764
DNA report, authenticity of---Pre-requisites---Record showed that four nail swabs were extracted from both hands of deceased which were dispatched to the office of Forensic Science Agency for DNA analysis---According to report, the left-hand nail swabs of deceased matched with the DNA profile of three individuals out of whom accused was described as one of the possible contributors---DNA evidence could attain admissibility if prosecution satisfactorily proved the process of sampling, safe custody and onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency and the foregoing process was called in the field of forensic as doctrine of analysis and it stressed for flawless sampling, correct packing, safe custody and above all free from doubt transmission to the office of expert---Any defect in the said process makes even the positive DNA report doubtful in nature forcing the Courts to discard it from consideration--
2024 PCrLJ 1764
CCTV footage---Forensic expert not summoned as a witness---Effect---Record showed that the actual homicide incident remained un-witnessed and till the registration of FIR, the identity of the culprit was unknown and for that reason no one was nominated therein even as a suspect---According to the prosecution case, the police acquired knowledge about the culprit from the visuals captured in the CCTV camera installed at the outer gate of the adjacent house belonging to neighborer of deceased---DVR of the CCTV camera was taken into possession by Investigating Officer through recovery memo---However, it was noticed that though the DVR was statedly taken from the possession of neighborer of deceased but he was not the witness of its recovery memo and even otherwise the DVR was not exhibited in his statement---Such omission gave rise to the query that how it could be ascertained that the DVR exhibited in the statement of Investigating Officer was the same which was installed in the house of neighborer of deceased---From the said visuals complainant identified accused as the person who had been rendered services as servant with the deceased---Such visuals were forwarded to Forensic Science Agency along with accused who after in-depth analysis gave his opinion through his report that forensic facial comparison analysis of accused with the person seen in videos of incident was inconclusive due to minimal facial feature information of suspect---Forensic Science Agency Report, admittedly, did not support the case of prosecution but still it was tendered in evidence---Report through necessary implication of S.9(3) of the Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007, was per se admissible but since it was not in favour of prosecution thus the expert could still be summoned as Court Witness to remove ambiguity arising out of it---Strangely, no effort whatsoever was made by the prosecution to do the needful of summoning the expert from the Forensic Science Agency as witness in the case---Another remedy was available to the prosecution under S.12 of the Forensic Science Agency Act, 2007, but no step even in that regard was taken---In the site plan, neither the house of neighbour of deceased was shown nor the point, where the CCTV camera was installed, was highlighted---For satisfying the legality of the impugned judgment, the DVR was requisitioned and despite best efforts it could not be de-codified to examine the visuals, thus, there was no option but to discard it in accordance with the Forensic Science Agency Report---
2024 PCrLJ 1764
Collection, sampling, packing, safe custody and transmission of DNA profile for analysis doubtful------Junior Forensic Scientist uttered not a single word about the identity of the Police Officer to whom he handed over the samples so taken from the nails of the deceased---Moreover, it needed no elaboration that even for providing credibility to the positive report of Forensic Science Agency in the present case, the prosecution should have led some evidence about the nature of those nail swabs and the kind of the substance extracted therefrom---Nothing as such was available on the record that those swabs were pertaining to the blood, skin tissues or hairs etc. of the unknown person---If at all those swabs were comprising of skin tissues etc. then in order to make it admissible for fetching positive results in the trial, the prosecution should have got accused medically examined after his arrest which was affected on 09.05.2021 i.e. just five days after the incident---Medical examination of accused would have revealed that whether he was in receipt of some scratches, lacerations etc. which would have been the way forward to connect him with the nail swabs taken from the deceased---Further along with those nail swabs Junior Forensic Scientist also secured two buckle swabs of the deceased and drawstring---Though Junior Forensic Scientist stated nothing about the identity of the Police Official to whom the articles so collected by him from the crime were handed over but during trial Investigating Officer claimed to have received all of them from the former---Fact remained that Investigating Officer stated nothing about the identity of the Police Official in whose custody those swabs were placed till their dispatch to the office of Forensic Science Agency---It was further noticed that Head Constable appeared before the trial Court and claimed to be Moharrir/Station Clerk who received various articles but made no reference to the swabs and drawstring secured from the crime scene---Investigating Officer also could not lift veil from the Police Official who handed him over envelopes for onward transmission to the office of Forensic Science Agency---It evinced from the Forensic Science Agency Report that only the buckle swabs of accused were presented for comparison but the pivotal question remained unaddressed that when and by whom those were taken---Such facts exposed that process of collection, sampling, packing, safe custody and transmission of swabs was prone to many legal defects on the basis whereof report of Forensic Science Agency was rejected
0 Comments