In the recent case, Veerendra vs State of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has remarked that lapse or omission to carry out DNA profiling, by itself, doesn’t decide the fate of the case.
In the appeal filed before the Court, one of the contentions from the accused side was that no DNA test was conducted to establish a connection between the appellant and the samples found on the deceased's body, and thereby Section 53 A Cr.P.C. was violated.
The appellant, who was the cousin brother of the victim’s mother was found to have been stripped, stuprated, and strangled to cause her death. The accused was convicted for offenses under Section 302, 376A, 376 (2) (i) IPC, and section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was consequently given the death sentence by the High Court.
The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant submitted that the conviction of the appellant was found on circumstantial evidence and scanning of the materials on record and the circumstances depended on for his conviction would reveal that the chain of circumstances was not complete. In appeal before the Apex Court, one of the contentions raised by the accused was that no DNA test was conducted to establish a connection between the appellant and the samples found on the deceased's body, and thereby Section 53A Cr.P.C. was violated.
Hence, it was prayed that the appellant was entitled to get the benefit of the doubt in view of such circumstances and as such, the conviction and sentence awarded were liable to be set aside and he was entitled to be acquitted.
The Hon’ble Bench upheld the observation made in Krishna Kumar Malik v State of Haryana and Sunil v State of Madhya Pradesh. It concluded that a positive result of the DNA test would constitute clinching evidence against the accused if, however, the result of the test is in the negative i.e., favoring the accused, or if DNA profiling had not been done in a given case, the weight of the other materials and evidence on record would still have to be considered.
The Court also rejected all other contentions made by the accused and upheld the conviction recorded by the Trial Court.