Allahabad HC Acquits Rape-Murder Convict Over DNA Chain of Custody Lapses

The Allahabad High Court has overturned a life sentence in a brutal rape and murder case, ruling that the failure to maintain a verifiable chain of custody for DNA samples constitutes a fatal flaw that cannot be cured at the appellate stage. This decision reinforces the mandatory nature of forensic protocols, holding that even scientific evidence loses its probative value if the state fails to prove the sanctity of sample handling and transmission.

A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Rajeev Bharti heard the criminal appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction for the rape and murder of a 14-year-old girl. The Court meticulously analyzed the evidentiary gaps in a case founded entirely on circumstantial evidence, highlighting the prosecution's failure to bridge the gap between suspicion and legal proof.

Judicial Scrutiny of DNA Evidence and Forensic Integrity

The Court observed that while medical evidence confirmed the victim died of asphyxia due to strangulation and was subjected to sexual assault, the link to the appellant was not established. The DNA profiling, which the Trial Court heavily relied upon, was found to be procedurally compromised. The High Court noted that biological samples remained in police custody for five days without any explanation regarding their storage in the Maalkhana, and critical witnesses, including the laboratory technician who drew the samples and the forensic experts, were never examined.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "We are weighed down by melancholy to see this conclusion and the way the trial court put reliance on the D.N.A. report, without proper application of its judicial mind, when it was seen from the record that the Maalkahana-in-Charge was not examined, nor the person who took the sample to FSL. ... In a case where the conviction is sought to be founded substantially upon scientific evidence, strict proof of the integrity of the samples assumes considerable importance."

Failure of 'Last Seen' Theory and Recovery Evidence

The prosecution's case rested on the 'last seen' theory and alleged recoveries of a driving license and mobile phone. However, the High Court found these links weak, as one key witness turned hostile and the other was an interested relative of the deceased whose testimony contained material inconsistencies. The Court emphasized that for a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the chain must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Regarding the recoveries, the Court noted that independent witnesses were either not examined or turned hostile, claiming their signatures were obtained on blank papers. The bench found that the Investigating Officer failed to connect the recovered mobile phone to the appellant through call records or subscriber details, rendering the recovery legally insignificant.

Directives to State Authorities

The Court has the following directions:

"(i) A copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Director General of Prosecution, Uttar Pradesh, who shall issue appropriate administrative instructions/circulars to all Public Prosecutors and prosecuting officers in the State to ensure strict compliance with the observations and guidelines contained herein.

(ii) A copy of this judgment shall also be forwarded to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and to the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Uttar Pradesh, for ensuring strict adherence to the chain of custody requirements and the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Attavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu ( "2025 INSC 845": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 680).

(iii) The Senior Registrar of this Court is requested to communicate a copy of this judgment to the aforesaid authorities for information and necessary compliance."

Background:

The dispute arose from an incident in October 2011, where a minor girl's body was recovered from a pond in Hardoi. The prosecution alleged that the appellant raped and murdered the girl, relying on 'last seen' evidence and the discovery of the appellant's driving license near the scene. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302, Section 376, and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

On appeal, the High Court examined precedents such as State of U.P. vs. Kishanpal & Ors ( "(2008) 16 SCC 73": 2008 CaseBase(SC) 842) for witness credibility and Rahul vs. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. ( "(2023) 1 SCC 83": 2022 CaseBase(SC) 354) for DNA profiling standards. The bench noted that the appellant had already served 14 years in jail. Finding that the prosecution failed to provide a rhythmic explanation of the investigation as required by Subhash Chand vs. the State of Rajasthan ( "(2002) 1 SCC 702": 2001 CaseBase(SC) 2965) and violated the safeguards in Attavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamil Nadu ( "2025 INSC 845": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 680), the Court allowed the appeal and ordered the appellant's immediate release.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.372 of 2018
Case Title: Neerajpal Versus State of U.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Krishna Kumar Singh, Ankit Kumar Trivedi, Anuj Dayal, Manisha Trivedi, Mohammad Salim Khan, Rajat Pratap Singh, Smriti
For the Respondent(s): S.P. Singh, A.G.A.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 577