Holding

The non‑examination of the scientific experts and denial of access to the underlying DNA laboratory material vitiated the trial, necessitating a de‑novo trial.

Summary

The appellants Irfan and Asif Mevati were convicted of kidnapping, rape, and related offences and sentenced to death based largely on a DNA profiling report (Exhibit‑157). The trial court and the High Court relied on the report without examining any of the scientific experts who prepared it, and the appellants were given only a few days to challenge the evidence. The appellants filed an application under Section 391 CrPC and Article 142 of the Constitution seeking the summons and cross‑examination of the DNA experts and the production of the complete laboratory documentation. The Supreme Court held that the non‑examination of the scientific witnesses and the failure to provide the underlying material violated the accused’s right to a fair trial, especially in a capital‑punishment case. Consequently, the Court quashed the judgments of the trial and High Courts, remanded the matter for a de‑novo trial with the DNA experts to be examined as court witnesses and appropriate defence counsel appointed.

Issues considered

The trial court’s reliance on a DNA report without examination of the scientific experts violates the accused’s right to a fair trial.
Whether the non‑examination of DNA experts and non‑production of underlying laboratory documents vitiates the conviction and death sentence.
Whether the procedural safeguards under Sections 366, 391, 294, and 313 of the CrPC and Article 21 of the Constitution were complied with in a capital‑punishment case.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 294, s. 313, s. 366, s. 391
Constitution of Indias. Article 142, s. Article 21
Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018s. 376(DB)
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 363, s. 366-A, s. 376(2)(m)
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s. 5(g), s. 5(j)(iii)(m), s. 5(r), s. 6

Subjects

Non-examination of scientific witnessesScientific expertsDNA profiling reportRight of the accused to seek examination of scientific expertsCapital punishmentDeath penaltyChild victimForcible sexual assaultFair opportunity to defendMiscarriage of justiceSection 366 CrPCSection 391 CrPCArticle 21 Constitution of IndiaArticle 142 Constitution of India

Judgment

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1691 : 2025 INSC 150

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati
v.
State of Madhya Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No(s).1667-1668 of 2021)
16 January 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
In a case where the trial court relied upon the DNA report, whether
the non-examination of the scientific experts involved in the process
of conducting DNA profiling examination and issuing the report,
led to the failure of justice vitiating the trial wherein the appellants
were awarded capital punishment.

Headnotes†
Evidence – DNA profiling report – Non-examination of scientific
witnesses – Right of the accused to seek examination
of scientific experts/expert witnesses – Criminal Law
(Amendment) Ordinance, 2018 – s.376(DB) – Penal Code,
1860 – ss.363, 366A, 376(2)(m), 307 – Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.5(g), 5(j)(iii)(m), 5(r) r/w
s.6 – Appellants were awarded capital punishment by the
Trial Court – Death penalty confirmed by High Court – Non-
examination of the scientific experts involved in the process
of conducting DNA profiling examination and issuing the
report, though the trial court relied upon the DNA report, if
led to the failure of justice:
Held: Yes – Appellants were awarded capital punishment and thus,
they must be provided a fair opportunity to defend themselves –
The DNA profiling report (Exhibit-157) is a document on which
the entire fulcrum of the prosecution case is based – Admittedly,
it was formally exhibited by the Superintendent of Police (PW-31)
in his evidence – However, none of the scientific experts involved
in the process of conducting the DNA profiling examination and
issuing the report were examined by the prosecution – The trial

* Author
1692 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

was concluded in undue haste within less than two months from the
date of registration of the case and without providing appropriate
opportunity of defending to the accused – Failure of the trial Court
to ensure the deposition of the scientific experts while relying
upon the DNA report, has led to the failure of justice vitiating the
trial – Orders of the courts below quashed and set aside – Case
remanded to the Trial Court for summoning of the scientific experts
associated with the preparation and issuance of the DNA report
with the entire supporting material, directions issued – Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 – ss.366, 391 – Constitution of India –
Article 142. [Paras 22, 23, 29, 30]

Case Law Cited
Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2019] 18 SCR 1196 : (2019)
20 SCC 196 – relied on.
Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs [2022] 9 SCR
1129 : (2023) 1 SCC 83; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State
of Gujarat [2004] 3 SCR 1050 : (2004) 4 SCC 158; Naveen @
Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2023] 14 SCR 977 : (2023)
SCC OnLine SC 1365 – referred to.

List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Criminal
Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 2018; Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Non-examination of scientific witnesses; Scientific experts;
Scientific officers; DNA profiling report; Right of the accused to
seek examination of the scientific experts; Capital punishment;
Death penalty; Child victim; Forcible sexual assault; Appropriate
opportunity of defending to the accused not provided; Proper
opportunity to defend; Fair opportunity to defend; Failure of
justice; Grave prejudice; Testimony of the scientific experts;
Sexual intercourse; Serious assault; Confirmation of death
penalty; Laboratory documents; Miscarriage of justice; Remand;
Summoning of the scientific experts; Undue haste; Section 366 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 391 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973; Article 142 of Constitution of India.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1693

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
1667-1668 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2021 of the High Court
of M.P. at Indore in CRA No. 7215 of 2018 and CRRFC No. 14
of 2018
With
Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2022

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Siddharth Aggarwal, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Advs.,
Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Ms. Sakshi Jain, Vishwajeet Bhati, Karan
Dhalla, Mangesh Naik, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, Arvind Kumar Shukla,
Ms. Reetu Sharma, H .R. Khan, Nihal Ahmad, Tushar Swami,
Kunal Yadav, Shantanu Shukla, Ms. Ishita Chowdhury, Madhav
Gupta, Ms. Sabiha Fatma, Siddharth Sarup.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ms. Yashmita
Pandey.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

Mehta, J.

1. These appeals take exception to the judgment dated 9th September,
2021, rendered by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya
Pradesh at Indore,1 whereby the criminal appeals2 filed by the
appellants Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati3 and Asif Mevati4 were dismissed,
and the criminal reference5 under Section 366 of the Code of

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’.
2 Criminal Appeal No. 7215 of 2018 was filed by Irfan @ Bhayu Mevati, and Criminal Appeal No.7269 of
2018 was filed by Asif Mevati.
3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Irfan’.
4 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Asif’.
5 Criminal Reference No. 14 of 2018.
1694 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Criminal Procedure, 19736 instituted upon being forwarded by the
2nd Additional Session Judge/Special Judge, POCSO Act, Mandsaur,
Madhya Pradesh7 was allowed and the death penalty awarded to
the appellants was confirmed.
2. The appellants were tried by the trial Court in Sessions Case
No. 141 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 363,
366-A, 376(2)(m), 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 18608, Section
376(DB) of the Criminal Law(Amendment) Ordinance, 2018, and
under Section 5(g), 5(j)(iii)(m) and Section 5(r) read with Section 6
of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20129. The
trial Court, vide judgment dated 21st August, 2018, convicted the
appellants and sentenced them as below: -

Conviction Sentence
Sections & Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment
Amount in lieu of fine
363 IPC 7 years Rs. 6 months
10,000/-
366-A IPC 7 years Rs. 6 months
10,000/-
307 IPC L.I. Rs. 6 months
(in respect of 10,000/-
appellant Irfan)
307/34 IPC L.I. Rs. 6 months
(in respect of 10,000/-
appellant Asif)
376(DB) To be Hanged
Criminal Law by the neck
(Amendment) till death
Ordinance,
2018

6 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘CrPC’.
7 Hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’.
8 Hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’.
9 Hereinafter referred to as ‘POCSO’.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1695

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

3. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentence awarded, the
appellants preferred separate criminal appeals10 before the High
Court. Reference was forwarded by the trial Court to the High Court
for confirmation of the capital punishment awarded to the accused
under Section 366 CrPC. The criminal appeals preferred by the
appellants and the reference made by the trial Court were decided
as above vide common judgment dated 9th September, 2021, which
is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals by special leave.
4. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is that on 26th June, 2018, Smt.
Kamlabai(PW-7), lodged an FIR11 by alleging inter alia that her
granddaughter12, who was studying in the 3rd standard had gone
missing from the school premises after the classes. Based on the
said report, a police case for the offence punishable under Section
363 IPC was registered and the investigation was commenced.
On the next day, i.e., on 27th June, 2018, the Investigating Agency
received information that the child victim had been seen in an injured
condition by witness Karan(PW-10). Thereupon, the police rushed to
the spot and took the child victim to the Civil Hospital at Mandsaur
from where, looking at her serious condition, she was further referred
to M.Y. Hospital at Indore.
5. The child victim was provided treatment and was operated upon.
On inquiry being made from her, she narrated the story of her
plight to the police officials alleging inter alia that on the day of
the incident, after her school was over, she was waiting outside,
when suddenly a person came and forcibly put a sweet(ladoo) in
her mouth. Thereafter, the assailant forcibly took her to a secluded
spot where he called another person. She was forcibly undressed
and was subjected to forcible sexual assault by the person who
gave her the sweet, while the other person caught hold of her
hands. The police started searching for the alleged miscreants.
Incriminating articles such as the underwear of the child victim,
rocks, a beer bottle, a school bag, shoes, blood-stained soil, and
normal soil were collected from the spot, sealed, and sent to the

10 Refer, Note 2
11 Case No. 327 of 2018.
12 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘ child victim’.
1696 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

FSL13. Enquiries were made from the nearby shop keepers and
CCTV footage from three shops adjoining the place of the incident
was collected. Upon analyzing the CCTV footage, certain suspicious
movements were noticed. The persons known to the victim and
her relatives were shown the CCTV footage and they identified the
victim and the appellants in these footages.
6. The appellants were apprehended, and a Test Identification Parade
(TIP) was carried out in the jail premises during which, PW-10 the
witnesses who had allegedly seen the victim being taken away by
the assailant(s), identified them as the miscreants. The child victim
was also shown the photo albums containing the photographs of
the accused along with photos of persons bearing similarity in
appearance and she correctly identified both the accused (appellants
herein) from the albums as the persons who had committed the
ghastly crime upon her. Various specimens such as oral swab,
vaginal slides, vulval pad, etc. were drawn from the child victim
by the Medical Officers and were handed over to the Investigating
Officer in a sealed condition, who, in turn, dispatched these articles
to the FSL for DNA analysis.
7. The appellants were interrogated, and they suffered separate
disclosure statements leading to the recovery of clothes worn by
them at the time of the incident, and the vehicle used during the
commission of the crime. Both the accused were subjected to medical
examination and the blood samples, semen slides, and hair including
pubic hair, nails, etc. were collected. The appellant Irfan was found
to be having marks of scratches and teeth-bite on his body and his
private organ also bore redness which was considered to be an
indicator of forcible intercourse on his part.
8. The medical examination of the victim revealed that not only she
had been subjected to sexual intercourse, but in addition thereto,
she was also subjected to serious assault leading to injuries to her
throat and private parts, and one of her eyes had bulged out due to
compression leading to compromised vision. The perineum and anus
were found to be pierced, and she had to be surgically operated
for the purpose of creating a passage in her abdomen in order to
facilitate defecation.

13 Forensic Science Laboratory
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1697

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

9. The investigation was completed and a chargesheet was filed against
the appellants. Charges were framed against them for the offences
punishable under aforesaid sections.14 The appellants abjured their
guilt and claimed to be innocent. 37 witnesses were examined, and
various documents were exhibited by the prosecution to bring home
the guilt of the appellants. The trial Court questioned the appellants
under Section 313 CrPC and confronted them with the allegations
appearing in the prosecution case which they denied and claimed
to be innocent. No evidence was led in defence.
10. Learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 21st August, 2018, convicted
the appellants and sentenced them as above15. The appellants
assailed their conviction and sentence by filing separate appeals16
before the High Court. Since the appellants were awarded capital
punishment, the trial Court made a reference to the High Court for
confirmation of death penalty under Section 366 CrPC.
11. Vide common judgment dated 9th September, 2021, the High Court
dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the appellants and the
reference forwarded by the trial Court was answered in the affirmative,
confirming the capital punishment awarded to the appellants, which
is assailed in these appeals by special leave.
12. The appellants have preferred an I.A. No. 98928 of 2022 under
Section 391 CrPC read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India
seeking complete laboratory documents and for examination of expert
witnesses. The prayer made in the application reads: -
“A. Direct Ld. 2nd ADJ/ Special Judge POCSO, Mandsaur,
to summon and allow examination in chief, as well as allow
cross-examination by counsel for the Applicant, of Dr. Anil
Kumar Singh, Scientific Officer, and Assistant Chemical
Examiner, Govt of Madhya Pradesh, FSL Sagar who would
be competent to testify to the methodology, analysis, and
conclusions of the DNA Report;
B. Direct Ld. 2nd ADJ/ Special Judge POCSO, Mandsaur, to
allow such cross-examination by counsel for the Applicant,

14 Refer, Para 2.
15 Refer, Para 2.
16 Refer, Note 2.
1698 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

by calling for and with the aid of the complete laboratory
documentation in relation to the report dated 11.07.2018 of
FSL Sagar, bearing no. /DNA/1078, 1087, and 1132 /2018
filed in ST 88 of 2018 before the Ld. 2nd ADJ/ Special Judge
POCSO, Mandsaur, including but not limited to copies of
the following documents in the present case:
i. All laboratory documentation including worksheets,
bench notes, and equipment log sheets related to the
tests conducted and methods used for extraction,
quantification, amplification, and genotyping for all
the articles received;
ii. Details and complete laboratory documentation of
tests conducted and results of the tests;
iii. Electropherograms for DNA profiles and electronic
raw data (.fsa) obtained from all articles received,
allelic ladders, and control samples used;
iv. Working procedure manuals including DNA manual
and Serology manual used in examination of all
exhibits received;
v. Details of kits used for DNA extraction, quantification,
amplification, and genotyping in the case along with
manuals of such kits; and
vi. Complete documentation of the chain of custody
of all the Articles sent for examination to FSL Sagar,
with details of the packaging seals and sample seals
used.
C. Direct the trial Court to examine the Applicant under
Section 313 CrPC in respect of such additional evidence.”

The grounds set out in the application are reproduced hereinbelow
for the sake of ready reference: -

“A. APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE AN ADEQUATE
OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE DNA REPORT
6. As per the Order Sheet of the Ld. Trial Court, the
chargesheet in the present case was filed on 10.07.2018.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1699

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

On such date, an advocate from the District Legal Services
Authority was appointed for the Appellant; however, the
said lawyer was not present in court. The chargesheet
was filed while the DNA report was still awaited. The
DNA report dated 11.07.2018 was submitted in court only
on 19.07.2018. Thereafter, the 37 prosecution witnesses
were examined on 8 days by 8.08.2018. The Appellant’s
examination under Section 313 CrPC was done one day
later on 9.08.2018 and the matter was listed for final
arguments on 10.08.2018.
7. The DNA report, being of a scientific nature, requires
careful study and analysis. Given the above timeline, the
Appellant was not afforded adequate time during the trial
process to meaningfully understand and challenge the
said report. The Trial Court did not call for any underlying
materials or for examination of the DNA expert in order
to understand the report in accordance with Section 45
of the Indian Evidence Act, as elaborated below. This is
despite the prima facie errors in the report mentioned in
part B below. Such denial of an adequate and meaningful
opportunity to challenge the DNA report has resulted in
violation of the Appellant’s right to fair trial under Article
21 of the Constitution.

B. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES WITH THE DNA REPORT
WHICH MAKE THE REPORT UNRELIABLE
8. A prima facie examination of the DNA evidence reveals
several discrepancies which raise doubts regarding the
integrity of the samples, and the accuracy and reliability
of the DNA examination. A brief description of these
discrepancies is as follows:
i. Discrepancy in the DNA profiles generated from
vulval pad (item R) and evidence samples prepared
from the same source: As per the DNA Report (Ex. Pl57),
a Y-STR DNA profile generated from the vulval pad (item
R) is consistent with the Y-STR profile of the Applicant.
However, other genital samples of the Prosecutrix prepared
from the same and similar sources such as the vaginal slide
1700 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(item 0), smear tube (item Q), vulval smear (item U) did
not contain any male Y-STR profile, which raises doubts
regarding the integrity of the vulval pad (item R). This
is particularly important since the vaginal slide (item 0)
was the first sample collected from the Prosecutrix after
she was brought to Civil Hospital Mandsaur on 27.06.18.
After 6 days on 02.07.2019, the smear tube (item Q),
vulval smear (item U), and the vulval pad (item R) were
collected at MY Hospital Indore. It is also important to
note that Directorate of Forensic Science Services (DFSS)
MHA guidelines for medical practitioners note that vulval
swabs should be taken before the collection of vaginal or
cervical swabs in order to avoid contamination of vaginal
samples from the DNA that may be present on the outer
parts such as labia majora. [DFSS MHA Guidelines for
Forensic Medical Examination in Sexual Assault Cases,
2018, pg 8] Despite ignoring that settled procedure, the
presence of male DNA in the vulval pad (item R) and not
the vaginal slide (item 0) gains significance.
ii. Presence of Male DNA in the vulval pad (item R) and
nails (item T) despite extensive medical procedures
and delay in collection: The vulval pad (item R) and nails
(item T) were collected along with smear tube (item Q),
vulval smear (item U) on 02.07 .18, after the Prosecutrix
had been admitted in the hospital for 6 days (Ex Pl16, Pg.
239 Hindi TCR). During this period, the Prosecutrix had
undergone extensive medical procedures and treatment,
including on her vaginal, perineal and rectal areas (see
Ex. P78 Pg. 188, Ex. 86 Pg. 199, Ex. 97 Pg. 213, Ex. P108
Pg. 228, Ex. Pll1 Pg. 231, Ex. ll3 Pg. 234 Hindi TCR). In
such a scenario, the finding of viable male Y-STR DNA
in the vulval pad collected 7 days after the sexual assault
(approximately 163 hours after the alleged time of the
incident) would be impossible. For this, reference may
be made to established scientific protocols and literature,
which state that DNA profile cannot be obtained from
vaginal samples 96 hours after sexual assault. [Ministry of
Health & Family Welfare, Guidelines & Protocols Medico-
legal care for survivors/victims for sexual violence, 2014,
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1701

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

pgs 29, 59; Gringas et. al. Biological and DNA evidence in
1000 sexual assault cases, Forensic Science International:
Genetics Supplement Series 2 (2009) 138-140] Further, it
is important to note that a set of samples, including nails,
pad, hair combings, grass and mud samples, and swabs
taken from labia and posterior fornix were collected from the
Prosecutrix on 27.06.2018 at MY Hospital Indore (Ex.85,
Pg. 198 Hindi TCR). No seizure memo was prepared after
the collection of these samples and the chain of custody of
these samples after collection by the doctors is unknown.
Despite that, since the Prosecutrix’s nails were collected
on 27.06.2018 as per the medical record, the finding of
Y-STR DNA on the second set of nail clippings collected
after 6 days on 02.07.2018 would be impossible.
iii. Issues in the chain of custody of vulval pad (item
R) which warrant further examination of DNA profiling
results: As per the medical records at MY Hospital Indore
(Ex. 116, Pg. 239-240 Hindi TCR), the vulval pad (item
R) was collected along with 4 swabs (from the perinium,
vagina, preanal and anal), 2 smears, blood sample, hair
and nail clippings on 02.07.2018 at 1 PM and handed over
to PC Archana Dodiya (760). However, as per the seizure
memo (Ex. 181, Pg. 348 Hindi TCR) and the forwarding
memo from the police to SFSL Sagar (Ex. 154), these
items were seized on 29.06.2018. It is important to note
that no samples have been collected from the Prosecutrix
on 29.06.2018. Therefore, the identity and custody of the
vulval pad (item R) is dubious.
iv. Doubts over identity of pubic hair (item 1): Item I is
alleged to be the pubic hair of the Applicant from which a
mixed DNA profile has been generated that is reported to
include the DNA profile of the Prosecutrix. However, the
mixed DNA profile excludes the Applicant’s DNA, on 5 out
of 24 genetic markers or loci (THOJ, D22Sl045, D10S1248,
Y-Indel, DYS391) (Pg. 302 Hindi TCR), which raises doubts
regarding the identity of the pubic hair. It is important to
note that the DNA report fails to mention this exclusion for
the Applicant’s DNA in item I and incorrectly refers to Item
I as pubic hair of the Applicant in the findings and opinion.
1702 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

v. Absence of Applicant’s DNA from clothes (Pant
item K, Shirt item L and Baniyan item N): It is the
prosecution’s case that items K, Land N are clothes worn
by the Applicant during the commission of the offence. As
per the DNA report, the Pant item K and Baniyan item N
only have a single source DNA profile which is consistent
with the DNA of the Prosecutrix. Further, item L reveals
a mixed DNA profile which is also reported as containing
the DNA of the Prosecutrix. However, the Applicant is
excluded from this mixed DNA profile on 9 out of 24
loci(D8Sll79, D19S433, THO1, D22Sl045, D13S317,
D7S820, D1OSJ248, D1Sl656, D12S391) (Pg. 302 Hindi
TCR). Therefore, the Applicant’s DNA is not found on
any of the clothing items attributed to him which raises
a serious doubt since a person’s clothes may contain
different sources of their DNA, including skin, saliva, sweat,
semen, blood etc.
vi. Presence of unknown alleles in DNA profiles
generated from hair found at crime scene (item Y)
and Applicant’s shirt (item L): The mixed DNA profile
obtained from the shirt (item L) contains unknown alleles
on 5 out of 24 loci (CSFlPO, D21Sll, FGA, SE33, D2S
1338) which are not attributable either to the Prosecutrix
or the Applicant (Pg. 302 Hindi TCR). Further, the mixed
Y-STR DNA profile obtained from the hair found at the
crime scene (item Y) contains an unknown allele on one
locus (DYS635) (Pg. 299 Hindi TCR). Since both these
samples show the presence of unknown alleles, it is
more important to review the interpretation of the mixed
DNA profile by reviewing the electronic raw data and the
electropherograms. As explained in the section below,
interpretation of DNA mixtures requires consideration of the
number of contributors, the peak heights of the alleles as
seen in the electropherograms and the peak height ratios
to consider the allele pairs (or genotype) for ascertaining
whether an individual’s DNA is present within the mixture.
Mere finding of individual alleles without identifying the
genotypes is scientifically invalid. For example, if alleles A,
B, C, D are present in a DNA mixture and the suspect has
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1703

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

alleles C and D in their profile, it is incorrect to conclude
that the suspect’s DNA is present in the DNA mixture. This
is because with these alleles, 10 possible genotypes are
possible i.e. AA, BB, CC DD, AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD. In
such a scenario, it is possible that genotype CD may not
be present in the mixture although the individual alleles C
and D are reported in the mixture. Further since unknown
alleles have been found in DNA profiles generated from
hair found at crime scene (item Y) and Applicant’s shirt
(item L), equipment log sheets are required to check for
contamination, to determine which samples were run with
the aforesaid samples.
In the absence of any interpretational data in the DNA
report, the finding of unknown alleles in hair found at the
crime scene (item Y) and the Applicant’s shirt (item L)
raise more concerns regarding the interpretation of the
DNA mixtures to conclude the presence of the Applicant’s
and the Prosecutrix’s DNA in these items, respectively.
vii. Presence of off-ladder allele in multiple samples: As
per the allelic tables in the DNA report, the autosomal STR
profiles for six samples shows an off-ladder peak on locus
SE33 (Pg. 300 and 304, Hindi TCR). The samples include
the hair found at the crime scene (item Y), and blood sample
(item F), underwear (item A), pubic hair (item B), nail (item
Z-4) and baniyan (item Z-7) collected from co-accused
Asif. As per established scientific protocols, including the
DFSS MHA Working Procedures Manual for Forensic DNA
Profiling, an off-ladder peak may either be a true allele
or an artefact created during the DNA profiling process.
To determine the nature of an OL allele, re-amplification
of the samples would be required, particularly if the peak
is observed in a DNA mixture such as the hair found at
the crime scene (item Y). Interpretation of DNA profiles
without determining the nature of the OL peak cannot be
done. Further, as per the DFSS manual, documentation
of an OL allele requires the electropherogram with both
the sample and associated allelic ladder for the locus to
be provided. (DFSS MHA, Working Procedures Manual
Forensic DNA Testing, 2019, pg 131-132)
1704 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Since multiple samples have displayed an OL allele, it is
essential to check if the procedures for interpretation of
an OL allele have been followed in this case. The identity
of this OL allele directly impacts the interpretation and
genotyping of the other allelic peaks that present in these
samples. Without such information, the interpretation and
conclusions regarding these samples cannot be relied
upon.
A. Lack of serological examination to identify the body
fluid in item W: As per the forwarding letter (Ex. PI 54,
Pg. 602 Hindi TCR), the soil seized from the crime scene
(item W) was forwarded to the SFSL Sagar as “blood
stained soil”. The DNA Report refers to this sample as
blood stained soil from the crime scene and concludes that
the Prosecutrix’s DNA is found in that sample. However,
it must be noted that no serological examination has
been done to conclude that this sample contains blood.
Further, even assuming that the DNA profile generated
is correctly reported in the allelic table, DNA examination
cannot determine the biological material from which the
DNA is sourced.

B. THE DNA REPORT (EX. 157) IS INCOMPLETE AND
CANNOT BE RELIED UPON IN THE ABSENCE OF
UNDERLYING REASONS
9. The DNA Report does not contain the complete data and
materials relied upon during the DNA examination, which
form the basis of the conclusion drawn in the report. It is
pertinent to note that without examining these materials,
neither this Hon’ble Court nor the Applicant can verify the
accuracy and reliability of the DNA evidence. As per settled
law, under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is
the duty of the expert to provide the “necessary scientific
criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as
to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by
the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the
evidence of the case.” (State of Himachal Pradesh v Jai
Lal, (1999) 7 SCC 280, para 18, Ramesh Chandra Agarwal
v. Regency Hospital Ltd. (2009) 9 sec 709,para 20)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1705

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

10. The DNA report only contains the allelic tables followed
by the conclusions of the tests and analysis conducted.
Crucial underlying data and materials, such as details of the
amount of DNA extracted and amplified for each sample,
quantification kits used, use of positive and negative
controls during different steps of DNA profiling, use of
allelic ladders for interpretation, the electronic raw data
and electropherogram generated during the electrophoresis
process which were interpreted to prepare the allelic tables,
the method and thresholds for interpretation of the DNA
samples, and the statistical analysis of the samples that
have matched have not been provided to the Applicant.
11. There are glaring lapses in the chain of custody
documentation with respect to crucial reference and
evidence samples which cast a doubt over the integrity of
the samples and require further examination of laboratory
records. For instance, Article Z1 and Z2 i.e. the blood
sample (used for generating reference DNA profile of the
Prosecutrix) and oral swab of the Prosecutrix were sent to
SFSL Sagar with letter bearing no. PO/Mand/FSL/177-A/20
18 dated 02.07.2018 (Ex.155, Pg. 292 Hindi TCR). As per
the evidence of PW33 SI Vijay Purohit (Pg. 454, Hindi
TCR), he deposited these articles to FSL Sagar. However,
the receipt issued by SFSL Sagar dated 03.07.2018
(Ex P161, Pg. 311 Hindi TCR) mentions that the articles
were brought by Constable Lalit (not examined).
12. Further, the Applicant has never been given access
to these documents and therefore, has been denied an
adequate opportunity to challenge the evidence adduced
against him. The lack of these documents gains further
significance in this case as the DNA report has been
admitted under Section 293 CrPC (Pg.10 297 Hindi TCR)
and the evidence of the DNA experts who have signed
the report, Dr Kamlesh Kaitholia Scientific Officer, Dr.
Praveesh Bhati Scientific Officer and Dr Ani! Kumar Singh
Scientific Officer & Assistant Chemical Examiner, have not
been recorded. This has further limited the scope of the
scientific and technical examination of the DNA evidence
in the present case. In several decisions, this Hon’ble
1706 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Court has reiterated the need to ensure quality control
of the samples and the testing methods used as part of
the DNA examination. Given the sensitive nature of DNA
which makes it susceptible to issues of contamination and
DNA transfer, this Court has also stressed on the need
to ensure that possibility of contamination is eliminated
(Anil v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 69 para 53,
Manoj v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Appeal 248-250
of 2015 decided on 20.05.2022 paras 139-141, Pattu
Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019) 4 SCC 771 para 52)
13. The non-supply of the complete laboratory documentation
violates the Applicant’s right to an adequate and meaningful
opportunity to challenge the DNA evidence adduced against
him, resulting in violation of his right to fair trial under
Article 21 of the Constitution. As explained above, without
these documents, the scientific accuracy and reliability of
DNA evidence cannot be ascertained. Furthermore, the
absence of a request on the Applicant’s part to supply
these documents at an earlier stage cannot have the effect
of foreclosing a right of the accused. [Manu Sharma v.
State (NCT of Delhi) 2010 6 SCC 1 (paras 220-221), V.K.
Sasikala v. State (2012) 9 SCC 771 (paras 20-21)]

C. THE DNA REPORT (EX. 157) HAS NOT BEEN
PROVED BY THE DNA EXPERT
14. The DNA Report has been signed by Dr Kamlesh
Kaitholia Scientific Officer, Dr. Praveesh Bhati Scientific
Officer and Dr Ani! Kumar Singh Scientific Officer &
Assistant Chemical Examiner (Pg. 305 Hindi TCR).
However, none of these experts were examined in order to
prove the contents or the conclusions of the DNA report. In
fact, the DNA report was proven by PW31 Rakesh Mukati,
the Superintendent of Police, who merely mentions that the
DNA report was received via letter bearing serial no. FSL/
DNA/1078, 1087 and 1132 /2018 dated 11.07.2018 and
was sent by PS City Kotwali for the purpose of attaching
it to the case documents (PW31, Pg. 447 Hindi TCR).
Not involved in the process of DNA examination, PW31
Rakesh Mukati does not testify to the methodology used
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1707

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

during the different steps of the DNA profiling process or
the basis for the interpretation of the DNA profiles. Further,
given the absence of the DNA experts who conducted
the examination, the Applicant is prohibited from cross-
examining on the scientific and technical aspects of DNA
profiling, which go to the foundation of the DNA evidence.
15. It is humbly submitted that errors in the DNA
examination mentioned above have been overlooked
by the lower courts and the DNA evidence has been
incorrectly considered. Contrary to the correct scientific
and legal position, the Ld. Trial Court in paragraph 62 of
its decision even mentioned that DNA profile detection is
an “advanced and precise science”. Hence, the Ld. Trial
Court did not question the conclusions of the DNA Report
and took the opinions as facts.
16. That in order to effectively challenge the conclusions
of the DNA Report, the Applicant seeks a copy of all
underlying documents, including but not limited to, the
worksheets for DNA extraction, quantification, amplification
and electrophoresis for all exhibits received in the present
case, electropherograms for DNA profiles generated in
respect of all articles received, allelic ladders and control
samples, details of all the tests conducted as well as
their results, DNA working procedure manual used in
examination of all exhibits received in the present case,
complete chain of custody documentation for all Articles
received, with details of the packaging, seals and sample
seals used, in respect of all forensic DNA reports generated
by FSL Sagar.
17. The Applicant further seeks that the Ld. Trial Court
be directed to summon and take on record the testimony
of Dr Anil Kumar Singh or any such person competent to
testify to the methodology adopted, the manner in which
DNA profiles were extracted, tests conducted, the chain
of custody of articles within FSL Sagar, analysis of the
DNA, and basis of the conclusions in the DNA Report.”
Notice was issued on this application on 10th August, 2022 and the
State has filed a response to the same with a categoric plea that the
1708 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

State FSL has preserved the documents for 10 years and they are
available with the State FSL, Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. It is further
stated that the scientific officers are still in service of State FSL, but
they have been transferred to different units and can be called upon
as and when this Court deems it necessary to summon them so as
to substantiate the exhibited reports.
13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently and
fervently contended that the denial of the permission to examine
the scientific experts with reference to the documents on which,
the evidence of DNA Experts and the FSL Experts was based, has
caused grave prejudice to the appellants and goes to the very root
of the case.
14. He submitted that the DNA report signed by the scientific experts
forms a critical piece of evidence, which has been relied upon by the
trial Court and High Court while convicting the appellants. Therefore,
the non-examination of these scientific experts has led to gross
miscarriage of justice vitiating the entire trial.
15. Learned counsel urged that the DNA report has been signed by Dr.
Anil Kumar Singh, Scientific Officer and Assistant Chemical Examiner,
Dr. Kamlesh Kaitholia, Scientific Officer, and Dr. Pravesh Bhatti,
Scientific Officer. However, none of these Experts were examined to
prove the contents/conclusions of the DNA report (Exhibit - 157) which
was proved during the evidence of Rakesh Mukati, Superintendent of
Police (PW-31). It was submitted that the mere exhibiting of the DNA
report during the deposition of the Police Officer would not satisfy
the essential requirement to prove the methodology used during the
different steps of DNA profiling or the basis of the interpretation of
DNA profiling.
16. Learned counsel further pointed out that even the allele number
entered into the table, was corrected subsequently after comparison
from the Electropherogram, without giving any opportunity to the
accused to rebut the same. He urged that the State Government has
admitted in its reply that there was a typographical error in the allele
number, which was corrected at a later stage. He thus, urged that
the accused have suffered grave prejudice on account of the failure
of the prosecution to provide the fundamental material on which,
the DNA report was based. It was also contended that the failure to
examine the experts in evidence has led to a miscarriage of justice.
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1709

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

17. He submitted that even the relevant questions regarding the DNA
report were not put to the accused persons (appellants herein) when
their statements were recorded under Section 313 CrPC, which has
caused them grave prejudice. He placed reliance on the judgment of
this Court in the case of Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh17
and urged that the application deserves acceptance and the scientific
experts be summoned and the accused be allowed to cross-examine
these witnesses with reference to the complete records including
the link evidence so that they can be provided a proper opportunity
to defend themselves, more particularly as they face the daunting
prospect of death penalty.
18. Learned counsel for the State has filed a detailed reply to the
application filed by the accused under Section 391 read with Article
142 of the Constitution of India. It has been asserted in the reply
that the discrepancy in the allele number entered into the table was
simply a typographical error and thus, was bona fide corrected after
comparison with the Electropherogram. It was further submitted that
the trial Court acted in consonance with the legislative mandate of
the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2018 which requires that a trial
for the offence under Section 376(DB) IPC must be completed in a
time-bound manner and thus, no fault can be found in the procedure
of conducting trial.
19. Learned counsel for the State urged that there is absolutely no
necessity to examine the scientific experts and that the exhibiting
of the DNA report under Section 293 CrPC is sufficient compliance
of the statutory mandate. The examination of the expert(s) would
have been a mere formality thereby, delaying the trial. Contending
so, he implored the Court to dismiss the application.
20. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State was, however,
not in a position to dispute the fact that the DNA report was formally
exhibited in the evidence of the Superintendent of Police (PW-31)
and none of the scientific experts who conducted the DNA profiling
procedure, prepared and issued the report, were examined during
trial so as to testify about the methodology used during the different
steps of the DNA profiling or the basis for the interpretation thereof.

17 (2019) 20 SCC 196
1710 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

21. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced by the parties and have perused the material available
on record.
22. It is an admitted position that the DNA profiling report (Exhibit-157)
was formally exhibited by the Superintendent of Police(PW-31) in
his evidence. None of the scientific experts involved in the process
of conducting the DNA profiling examination and issuing the report
have been examined by the prosecution.
23. The DNA profiling report is a document on which the entire fulcrum
of the prosecution case is based. The defence has claimed grave
prejudice on account of non-examination of these scientific witnesses
and the non-production of the experts in evidence, thereby creating
a grave doubt on the probative value of the report.
24. The aspect concerning evidentiary value of DNA report has been
explained by this Court in Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home
Affairs18, wherein it was held as under: -
“36. The learned Amicus Curiae has also assailed the
forensic evidence i.e. the report regarding the DNA profiling
dated 18-4-2012 (Ext. P-23/1) giving incriminating findings.
She vehemently submitted that apart from the fact that
the collection of the samples sent for examination itself
was very doubtful, the said forensic evidence was neither
scientifically nor legally proved and could not have been
used as a circumstance against the appellant-accused.
The Court finds substance in the said submissions
made by the Amicus Curiae. The DNA evidence is in
the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged under
Section 45 and like any other opinion evidence, its
probative value varies from case to case.
38. It is true that PW 23 Dr B.K. Mohapatra, Senior Scientific
Officer (Biology) of CFSL, New Delhi had stepped into the
witness box and his report regarding DNA profiling was
exhibited as Ext. PW 23/A, however mere exhibiting a
document, would not prove its contents. The record
shows that all the samples relating to the accused and

18 (2023) 1 SCC 83
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1711

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

relating to the deceased were seized by the investigating
officer on 14-2-2012 and 16-2-2012; and they were sent
to CFSL for examination on 27-2-2012. During this period,
they remained in the malkhana of the police station. Under
the circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the
samples collected also could not be ruled out. Neither the
trial court nor the High Court has examined the underlying
basis of the findings in the DNA reports nor have they
examined the fact whether the techniques were reliably
applied by the expert. In the absence of such evidence
on record, all the reports with regard to the DNA profiling
become highly vulnerable, more particularly when the
collection and sealing of the samples sent for examination
were also not free from suspicion.”
(emphasis supplied)

25. This Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat19
has emphasized that the object of the criminal trial is to search for
the truth and the trial is not about over technicalities and must be
conducted in such a manner as will protect the innocent and punish
the guilty. The relevant extract is as follows:
“38. A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the issues
in the case and its purpose is to arrive at a judgment on an
issue as to a fact or relevant facts which may lead to the
discovery of the fact issue and obtain proof of such facts
at which the prosecution and the accused have arrived by
their pleadings; the controlling question being the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Since the object is to mete out
justice and to convict the guilty and protect the innocent,
the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout
over technicalities, and must be conducted under such
rules as will protect the innocent, and punish the guilty.
The proof of charge which has to be beyond reasonable
doubt must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality
of the evidence. oral and circumstantial, and not by an
isolated scrutiny.

19 (2004) 4 SCC 158
1712 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

39. Failure to accord fair hearing either to the accused or
the prosecution violates even minimum standards of due
process of law. It is inherent in the concept of due process
of law, that condemnation should be rendered only after
the trial in which the hearing is a real one, not sham or a
mere farce and pretence. Since the fair hearing requires
an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be vitiated
and violated by an overhasty, stage-managed, tailored,
and partisan trial.
40. The fair trial for a criminal offence consists not only in
technical observance of the frame and forms of law, but
also in recognition and just application of its principles in
substance, to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage
of justice.”
26. The controversy in question is squarely covered by the decision of
this Court in Anokhilal(supra), wherein, this Court remanded the
matter to the trial Court for de-novo trial, considering the fact that
the entire trial was completed in a period of less than one month
and that the DNA report was received almost at the fag end of the
matter, and after such receipt, though technically an opportunity was
given to the accused, the issue on the point was concluded the very
same day. The relevant extract is as under:
“26. Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in
criminal matters and that would naturally be part of
guarantee of fair trial. However, the attempts to expedite
the process should not be at the expense of the basic
elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused,
on which postulates, the entire criminal administration of
justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal,
the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or
be sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice
and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a
core idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but
fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying
the cause of justice.
……..
28. All that we can say by way of caution is that in matters
where death sentence could be one of the alternative
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1713

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

punishments, the courts must be completely vigilant and
see that full opportunity at every stage is afforded to the
accused.
29. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the
judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed
by the trial court and the High Court against the appellant
and directing de novo consideration. It shall be open to
the learned counsel representing the appellant in the trial
court to make any submissions touching upon the issues (i)
whether the charges framed by the trial court are required
to be amended or not; (ii) whether any of the prosecution
witnesses need to be recalled for further cross-examination;
and (iii) whether any expert evidence is required to be led
in response to the FSL report and DNA report. The matter
shall, thereafter, be considered on the basis of available
material on record in accordance with law.”
27. This Court in Anokhilal(supra), has further provided certain norms
to remove the technical infirmities in Para 31 of the judgment, which
reads as under:-
“31. Before we part, we must lay down certain norms so
that the infirmities that we have noticed in the present
matter are not repeated:
31.1. In all cases where there is a possibility of life
sentence or death sentence, learned advocates who have
put in minimum of 10 years’ practice at the Bar alone be
considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiac or through
legal services to represent an accused.
31.2. In all matters dealt with by the High Court concerning
confirmation of death sentence, Senior Advocates of the
Court must first be considered to be appointed as Amicus
Curiae.
31.3. Whenever any learned counsel is appointed as
Amicus Curiae, some reasonable time may be provided to
enable the counsel to prepare the matter. There cannot be
any hard-and-fast rule in that behalf. However, a minimum
of seven days’ time may normally be considered to be
appropriate and adequate.
1714 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

31.4. Any learned counsel, who is appointed as Amicus
Curiae on behalf of the accused must normally be granted
to have meetings and discussions with the accused
concerned. Such interactions may prove to be helpful as
was noticed in Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan.”
28. Further, this Court in Naveen @ Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh20,
wherein the accused was never asked as to whether he admits
the documents, as required under Section 294 CrPC and neither
the scientific experts were called to prove the reports, remanded
the matter to the trial Court for de-novo trial holding that no proper
opportunity was granted to the accused therein to defend himself.
The relevant extract from this judgment is as under:-
“8. ………It is significant to note that the FSL report,
Viscera report and DNA report were not submitted
along with the charge-sheet. The same were presented
before the Trial Court on 04.05.2018. The accused was
never asked as to whether he admits the documents,
as required under Section 294 of Cr. P.C.. Neither any
witnesses were called to prove these reports. After
the prosecution case was closed on 08.05.2018, the
accused examination was conducted on the very next
day i.e. on 09.05.2018 and thereafter on the next day
i.e. on 10.05.2018, the case was fixed for examination of
defence witness.
It requires special notice that the accused was in jail and
was not defended by a counsel of his choice but by a
legal aid counsel. He was not in a position to present the
witness himself, yet he was directed to keep his witnesses
present on the next day i.e. on 10.05.2018. On this date,
he could not produce his witnesses, therefore, his defence
was closed, and the case was posted for final arguments
after recess.
22. In the case at hand, the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence in which the prosecution has to
prove each link in the chain of circumstantial evidence

20 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1365
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1715

Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh

and the important chains in the link are DNA report,
FSL report and Viscera report. When the reports were
challenged by the accused before the High Court,
it was brushed aside by observing that even if the
authors of the reports were not called for evidence,
in terms of Section 293 Cr. P.C., the reports are not
open to question as the defence had an opportunity
to cross-examine the authors of the reports during the
trial. In our considered view, the High Court was not
correct in saying that the defence had an opportunity to
cross-examine the experts. The trial has been conducted
on day-to-day basis wherein the accused, who was in jail
and defended by a counsel from legal aid, was compelled
by the Trial Court to produce defence witness of his own
in one day. It was impossible for the accused himself to
produce Dr. Anil Kumar Singh and Dr. Kamlesh Kaitholiya,
the authors of the Reports (Ex.P-72), in one day because
the said experts are government servants and could not
have attended the Court at the request of an accused in
jail. The Trial Court treated the accused as if he is carrying
a magic wand which is available to produce highly qualified
experts, who are government servants, on a phone call.
There was no opportunity, in the real sense, to the
appellant to cross-examine the experts.”
(emphasis supplied)

29. The instant case involves capital punishment and thus, providing
a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself is absolutely
imperative and non-negotiable. The trial in the case at hand was
concluded without providing appropriate opportunity of defending to
the accused and within and within a period of less than two months
from the date of registration of the case, which is reflective of undue
haste. The failure of the trial Court to ensure the deposition of the
scientific experts while relying upon the DNA report, has definitely
led to the failure of justice thereby, vitiating the trial.
30. In the wake of the above discussion, we allow the application filed
by the appellants. The case is remanded to the trial Court who
shall summon the scientific experts associated with the preparation
and issuance of the DNA report with the entire supporting material.
1716 [2025] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

These scientific experts shall be summoned and examined as Court
witnesses with a proper opportunity of examination to the prosecution
and the defence in that order. In case the accused are not represented
by a counsel of their choice, a defence counsel having substantial
experience in terms of the guidelines laid down by this Court in
Anokhilal(supra) (extracted in Para 26 of this judgment) shall be
appointed to defend the accused and in the de novo trial.
31. Pursuant to the testimony of the scientific experts being recorded,
the accused shall be again questioned under Section 313 CrPC in
context to the fresh evidence. They shall be provided a fair opportunity
of leading defence evidence. Thereafter, the trial Court shall proceed
to re-hear the arguments and decide the case afresh as per law.
The entire process as directed above, shall be completed within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.
32. That the discussion made above is confined to the issue of the right
of the accused to seek examination of the scientific experts connected
with the DNA report and the same shall not be taken to be a reflection
on the merits of the matter, which shall be considered and gone into,
uninfluenced by any observations made by us in this order.
33. Consequently, the judgment dated 21st August, 2018, passed by the
trial Court and the judgment dated 9th September, 2021, passed by
the High Court are quashed and set aside.
34. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
35. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey