Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. PW2- Anand Bhagwatrao Pagare (Exhibit 23) NPC (Buckle No. 687), has been attached to Sadar Police Station since 2017. On instructions from PSI Ghuge, he received a sealed DNA kit with a C.A. (Chemical Analyser) form. His duty was to deliver it to the Government Laboratory, Nagpur. On the same day i.e. on 25/10/2018, he delivered the kit and obtained an acknowledgment receipt (Exh. 24) generated on a computer and signed by Clerk Shri Girdhari Sayam. In cross-examination, objection was raised on the receipt's admissibility because it lacked an official seal or officer's signature. The learned Trial Court overruled the objection, accepting the argument that it was a computer- generated receipt signed by a clerk. PW2 denied the necessity of obtaining acknowledgment on a separate letter issued in the Laboratory's name and stated his name was not on the alleged letter. In cross-examination, he further denied being issued with a formal duty pass, however, volunteered that the transfer of the DNA kit was recorded in the Station Diary by the I.O. He could not recollect the exact time he received the kit or the exact time he handed it over to the C.A. office. He denied that the sample he carried was not in a sealed condition. He denied that the word 'seal' was struck out from the receipt (Exh. 24). He denied that the receipt was not given to him or that the clerk's signature was absent. He further confirmed delivering the sealed DNA kit to the laboratory on time, and while his memory of the exact timing was weak, he firmly defended the proper procedure and the integrity of both the sample and the acknowledgment receipt.

20. PW3- Sunita Shripatrao Yuvnate (Exhibit- 25) has been attached to the Sadar Police Station since 2016. She was present when PSI Ghuge recorded the victim's supplementary statement. The victim's mother and the staff of the Priyadarshini Girls' Hostel were also present. During cross-examination, she confirmed that the victim stated her name and address to the Investigating Officer, and specifically that the victim stated her real name.

21. PW4- Pravin Wasudeo Nimbarte (Exhibit- 28) is a Police Constable attached to Nandanwan Police Station since November 2018. He received a requisition letter (Exh. 29) issued by the I.O. to the Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Nagpur, and accordingly collected the DNA kit from the FSL. As per the I.O.'s direction and with a requisition letter (Exh. 30), he took the accused to the Govt. Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur, for examination. He handed the DNA kit to the Medical Officer (M.O.), who then collected the blood sample of accused inside the kit. The M.O. then returned the kit to the Constable in a sealed condition. He returned to the police station, received a new letter from the I.O. (Exh. 31) requesting an opinion on the DNA test, and personally submitted the sealed DNA kit and form to the Deputy Director of the FSL. He obtained an acknowledgment receipt (Exh. 32) from the Laboratory, identifying the clerk's signature, which was placed in front of him. He then handed the receipt to the I.O. He denied receiving an oral order from I.O. He strongly denied the compromising integrity of the process. He denied that he failed to collect the DNA kit, take the accused to the hospital, or deposit the blood samples with the FSL.

24. PW7- Ankita Vivek Dikshit (Exhibit 43) serving as an Assistant Chemical Analyst at the Regional Forensic Laboratory, Nagpur, since November 2011, testified about the DNA analysis performed in the present case. She stated that on October 25, 2018, the police requested two DNA kits (Exhibit 44). The witness's office supplied the kits and immediately received the victim's blood sample (Exhibit 45). On November 19, 2018, the police requested and received a kit for the blood sample of the accused (Exhibits 29, 31, 32). The assignment was given to the witness, who performed the DNA extraction from the blood samples of the victim, the accused, and the child. Using PCR amplification, a DNA profile was generated. The witness concluded that, based on the DNA results, the accused and victim are the biological parents of the child. The witness identified the final DNA analysis report (Exhibit 46), confirming its contents are true and correct and that it bears her signature. The witness lacked a separate acknowledgment for supplying the kit for the blood sample of accused. In cross-examination, the witness denied that the final report (Exh. 46) failed to mention the contents of all submitted DNA articles. The witness affirmed that DNA reports depend on sample purity. The witness denied the suggestion that she personally did not perform the DNA extraction and profiling. The witness denied the assertion that the DNA report was incorrect. In re-examination, the witness confirmed that she had produced the identification forms for the accused, the victim and the newly born child, which were supplied to the police as blank forms along with the DNA kits and later received back by the office with the collected samples.

In the present factual matrix, the delay is not explained neither the adoption of due procedure has come on record. In such a situation, possibility of contamination cannot be ruled out. However, PW7 merely deposes that the proper procedure has been adopted. There still exists a contradiction with regard to the number of DNA kits issued and received by PW7. This contradiction was not sufficiently explained by the prosecution. The chain of custody can be said to be broken, as there was no receipt or acknowledgment after the sample reached the laboratory. For conclusively determining that DNA samples are unadulterated, the procedure as held to be correct must be followed. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove compliance of the aforesaid stages. Thus, the contention that the DNA report cannot be relied upon is found to be on merit.