Summary
In appeals against death sentences for the gang rape and attempted murder of a child, the Supreme Court allowed the appellants' application under Section 391 CrPC read with Article 142. The trial had been concluded in under two months, and the DNA report, the fulcrum of the prosecution case, was merely exhibited through a police officer without any of the scientific experts being examined. Holding that this failure vitiated the trial, the Court set aside the convictions and remanded for the experts to be examined and the case decided afresh.
Issues
- Whether a trial in a capital case is vitiated where the DNA report central to the prosecution was formally exhibited through a police officer and none of the scientific experts who prepared it were examined.
- Whether the appellants should be allowed under Section 391 CrPC read with Article 142 to have the DNA experts summoned and cross-examined with the underlying laboratory material.
- Whether exhibiting the DNA report under Section 293 CrPC sufficed in light of the hurried, time-bound trial.
Provisions considered
- Section 391, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The appellants' application under this provision, read with Article 142, seeking the summoning and cross-examination of the DNA experts with the complete laboratory documentation and a fresh examination under Section 313, was allowed and the matter remanded to the trial court for that purpose. (¶¶ 12, 30, 31)
- Section 293, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The State's plea that exhibiting the DNA report under this provision was sufficient and examining the experts would be a mere formality was not accepted; relying on Naveen v. State of M.P., the Court held that the accused had no real opportunity to test the report and the trial court's failure to ensure the experts' deposition led to failure of justice. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 28, 29)
- Section 45, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Following Rahul v. State of Delhi, DNA evidence was treated as opinion evidence whose probative value varies from case to case; merely exhibiting the report does not prove its contents, and courts must examine its underlying basis and whether the techniques were reliably applied. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Directed that after the experts' testimony is recorded the accused be questioned afresh under this provision on the new evidence and given a fair opportunity to lead defence evidence. (¶ 31)
- Article 21 (fair trial) and Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe right of an accused facing capital punishment to a fair opportunity to defend himself was held imperative and non-negotiable; expedition must not sacrifice fairness, and the application was entertained under Article 142 read with Section 391. (¶¶ 12, 25, 26, 29)
Held
- A DNA report is opinion evidence whose probative value varies; merely exhibiting it does not prove its contents, and without examining its underlying basis and the reliability of the techniques applied, it becomes highly vulnerable. (¶ 24)
- A criminal trial is a search for truth, and fairness requires a real, not sham, hearing; expeditious disposal, though part of a fair trial, must not come at the cost of the basic elements of fairness and opportunity to the accused, particularly where death is a possible sentence. (¶¶ 25, 26)
- Following Anokhilal and Naveen, where a capital trial was concluded within less than two months of registration of the case and the DNA report, the fulcrum of the prosecution case, was exhibited only through the Superintendent of Police without examining any scientific expert, the accused were denied a fair opportunity of defence; the trial court's failure to secure the experts' deposition led to failure of justice and vitiated the trial. (¶¶ 22, 23, 26, 28, 29)
- The scientific experts associated with the DNA report are to be summoned with the entire supporting material and examined as court witnesses, with the prosecution and then the defence examining them. Unrepresented accused must be given experienced defence counsel in line with the Anokhilal norms, then questioned afresh under Section 313 CrPC and allowed to lead defence evidence, before the case is decided afresh. (¶¶ 27, 30, 31)
- The observations were confined to the accused's right to examine the scientific experts connected with the DNA report and were not a reflection on the merits, which the trial court must decide uninfluenced by them. (¶ 32)
Result
Appeals allowed; the application under Section 391 CrPC allowed; the trial court's judgment dated 21.08.2018 and the High Court's judgment dated 09.09.2021 confirming the death sentences set aside; matter remanded to the trial court to examine the DNA experts as court witnesses, re-examine the accused under Section 313 CrPC, allow defence evidence and decide afresh within four months.