DNA evidence rejected due to forensic handling delays in Gujarat HC case
In a judgment with far-reaching implications for forensic practice in India, the Gujarat High Court has acquitted three men sentenced to death in a 2018 gangrape-and-murder case, holding that DNA evidence relied upon by the prosecution was unreliable due to a broken chain of custody and an unexplained 14-day delay in sending samples for forensic examination.
The ruling underscores a crucial legal and scientific principle: DNA results are only as credible as the procedures used to collect, preserve, and transport biological evidence.
What the court found
A division bench observed that biological samples collected during investigation were kept at the police station for nearly two weeks before being forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory Ahmedabad. The prosecution failed to explain:
- why the delay occurred,
- how the samples were stored during this period,
- whether proper temperature and preservation protocols were followed, and
- how seal integrity was ensured at each stage of handling.
Crucially, the prosecution also did not examine the carrier of the samples as a witness, leaving a critical gap in proving continuity and integrity of evidence.
Why the DNA report failed judicial scrutiny
The High Court reiterated that DNA profiling, while scientifically powerful, is treated in law as opinion evidence. For such evidence to be admissible and persuasive, courts require strict compliance with chain-of-custody protocols, including:
- documented handovers,
- uninterrupted custody records,
- timely dispatch to forensic laboratories, and
- corroborative testimony of personnel involved in sample movement.
In the absence of these safeguards, the court held that the possibility of contamination, degradation, or tampering could not be ruled out, making it unsafe to rely on the DNA report for conviction—particularly in a case carrying the death penalty.
Impact on the case outcome
The High Court found that the prosecution’s case rested largely on circumstantial evidence. With the DNA link weakened, other components—such as the “last seen” theory and an alleged extra-judicial confession—were also found insufficient to complete an unbroken chain of guilt.
Reaffirming a long-standing criminal law principle, the court observed that “strong suspicion cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.” Consequently, all three accused were acquitted and ordered to be released.
Why this judgment matters for forensic science
For forensic professionals, investigators, and students, the ruling is a landmark reminder that forensic science is as much about process as it is about technology. Even the most advanced DNA analysis loses evidentiary value if basic procedural discipline is compromised.
Key forensic takeaways:
- Timeliness matters: Delays in forwarding biological samples can fatally weaken evidence.
- Documentation is critical: Every transfer must be logged, justified, and provable in court.
- Witnesses matter: Individuals handling evidence must be produced for testimony to establish continuity.
- Courts are watching: Indian courts are increasingly forensic-literate and exacting in their scrutiny.
A wake-up call for the system
As India expands its forensic infrastructure and capacity, this judgment serves as a cautionary signal: investment in laboratories must be matched by investment in training, protocols, and accountability at the crime-scene and investigation level.
For the forensic community, the Gujarat High Court’s ruling reinforces a simple but powerful truth—science convinces courts only when procedure protects science.
