Conviction based on DNA evidence requires proof of safe custody and an uninterrupted chain of custody.

The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 377 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the sexual assault of an 11-year-old boy on 05.06.2019

While the victim initially supported the prosecution in his Section 164 CrPC statement, he turned hostile during the trial, asserting he named the appellant out of nervousness and had not seen the perpetrator’s face

The Trial Court based the conviction primarily on an FSL report confirming the presence of the appellant’s DNA (semen) on the victim's pants

On appeal, the appellant challenged the reliability of the FSL report, citing a 12-day delay in sending samples to the laboratory (from 05.06.2019 to 17.06.2019) and the absence of Malkhana register entries to prove a continuous chain of custody

The Court applied Sections 377 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act regarding the substantive offences

It relied on Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act concerning statutory presumptions

Regarding procedural powers, the Court invoked Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 311 CrPC) and Section 168 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 165 Evidence Act) to take additional evidence

It further applied the principle from Kattavellai v. State of T.N. (2025), which mandates that DNA evidence must be discarded if the chain of custody is not handled with the highest quality control and procedures

The Court observed that while the medical evidence (MLC) confirmed recent sexual insertion, the identity of the culprit rested solely on the FSL report due to the victim's hostility

However, the prosecution failed to provide clarity on where the samples were stored between seizure and dispatch to the FSL

The Court noted that the mere assertion that samples were "sealed" is insufficient; the prosecution must prove safe custody via Malkhana records to rule out tampering

Citing Kattavellai, the Court emphasized that lapses by investigators in handling sensitive DNA evidence often lead to the rejection of vital proof

Nevertheless, the Court held that such lapses should not result in an "automatic acquittal" if justice can be served by calling for additional evidence

Consequently, the Court determined that the Investigating Officer and the Malkhana-in-charge must be examined to establish the integrity of the sample transit

Regarding the application for suspension of sentence, the Court held that since the appellant had already served seven years in custody and the FSL report—the primary link to the crime—remained under a cloud of doubt, the appellant was entitled to bail

The Court ordered the release of the appellant on a personal bond of ₹20,000 with two sureties, subject to specific conditions

The appeal is listed for further hearing on 28.10.2026