DNA Report Inadmissible Without Expert's Examination, Chain of Custody Paramount for Circumstantial Evidence: Orissa High Court Acquits Two in Triple Murder Case - 2025-08-14

Orissa High Court Overturns Death Sentence in Triple Murder, Cites "Glaring Lapses" in Investigation and Broken Chain of Evidence

CUTTACK – The Orissa High Court has acquitted two men, Prakash Behera and Nandakishor Sethi, who were sentenced to death by a trial court for the brutal triple murder of a family in 2017. A division bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice S.S. Mishra ruled that the prosecution's case, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, was riddled with "glaring lapses" and failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court heavily criticized the investigation for its failure to maintain the chain of custody for crucial evidence, particularly DNA samples, and for not examining the scientific expert who prepared the DNA report, rendering it inadmissible.

Case Background

The case stems from the gruesome murder of Biranchi Naik, his wife Tarani Naik, and their seven-year-old son Naba @ Ekalabya Naik on the night of October 9, 2017, in Angul district. The bodies, all bearing throat-slit injuries, were found in three different locations.

In September 2024, the Additional Sessions Judge, Athmallik, convicted Prakash Behera and Nandakishor Sethi for murder (Section 302 IPC), kidnapping for murder (Section 364 IPC), and causing the disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC). Citing the crime as a "rarest of rare" case, the trial court sentenced both to death, leading to a mandatory death sentence reference before the High Court, which was heard along with the convicts' appeal.

Prosecution vs. Defence Arguments

The prosecution's case rested on a chain of circumstances, including: -

Motive: Alleged political rivalry and a plan to rob the deceased of a large loan amount. -

Last Seen Evidence: A shopkeeper (P.W.37) testified to seeing the deceased Biranchi Naik with the two accused on the night of the murder. -

Recoveries: A weapon (katuri), blood-stained clothes, and other items were allegedly recovered based on the accused's disclosure statements. -

DNA Evidence: A forensic report purportedly linked the blood on the weapon and the accused's clothes to the victims.

The defence, led by counsel Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia, argued that the chain of circumstances was incomplete and unreliable. They highlighted the weakness of the 'last seen' testimony, the fact that recoveries were made from open, accessible places, and the questionable handling and delayed dispatch of forensic samples. Crucially, they pointed out that the DNA expert was never examined in court to prove the report's contents.

High Court's Scathing Analysis of Evidence

The High Court meticulously dismantled each link in the prosecution's chain of evidence.

On Motive and Last Seen Theory

The bench found that the prosecution failed to establish a clear motive, noting discrepancies in witness testimonies regarding the alleged political rivalry. On the pivotal 'last seen' evidence, the court found the shopkeeper's testimony unreliable, questioning his delayed statement to the police and the lack of a Test Identification Parade for an accused previously unknown to him.

On Recoveries and Chain of Custody

The court identified fatal flaws in the collection and handling of evidence. It observed: -

Independent seizure witnesses had turned hostile. -

There was no proof of proper sealing of the recovered articles, with seizure memos lacking the requisite seal impressions. -

A critical two-month delay in sending the items to the forensic lab was unexplained. -

The Malkhana register was not produced to prove the safe custody of the articles.

"The prosecution has failed to discharge this burden. In absence of evidence of retaining the specimen seal with any reliable person, the apprehension that there was chance of tampering with the packets cannot be lightly brushed aside." the court noted, citing precedent.

On DNA Evidence: A Fatal Flaw

The most significant ground for acquittal was the court's treatment of the DNA report. The bench held that the report was inadmissible as evidence because the scientific officer who conducted the analysis was not examined as a witness.

Quoting the Supreme Court's decision in Rahul v. State of Delhi , the bench reiterated, "mere exhibiting a document, would not prove its contents."

The court concluded that without the expert's testimony, there was no way to verify if the DNA profiling techniques were reliably applied. This, combined with the broken chain of custody and the possibility of tampering with samples, rendered the DNA findings "highly vulnerable" and irrelevant.

Final Verdict: "Sheer Moral Conviction" Not Enough

In its concluding remarks, the High Court stated that while a "grave and heinous crime" had been committed, the court's decision must be based on legal proof, not suspicion.

"The reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court in convicting the appellants seems to be based on conjecture and suspicion which has got no place in the matter of legal proof... we are of the view that the impugned verdict is nothing but a sheer moral conviction."

Allowing the criminal appeal, the court acquitted both appellants of all charges and ordered their immediate release. The death sentence reference was answered in the negative. The court also directed that the victim compensation of ₹30 lakhs be paid to the deceased couple's surviving minor daughter.