Back
SANDEEP SHARMA
Sanjeev Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
What is (How to) evaluate the admissibility and probative value of DNA evidence in POSCO cases? What is (What is) the proper standard of proof and foundational facts required to convict under POSCO Act sections 4 and 17? What is (What are) the circumstances under which a conviction based on expert/DNA evidence may be reversed or set aside on appeal?
Key Points: - (!) The Court questions the correctness and foundation of the SFSL DNA report and its use as sole basis for conviction. - (!) It highlights that DNA evidence cannot be sole and conclusive proof without corroborating foundational evidence. - (!) It emphasizes that the prosecution must establish foundational facts and reliable corroboration beyond mere DNA results. - (!) It notes that where material witnesses turned hostile and did not support the prosecution, reliance on DNA alone is insufficient for conviction. - (!) It discusses issues with seizure, handling, and Chain of Custody of DNA samples and whether samples reached the testing laboratory. - (!) It references expert evidence standards under Sections 45 and 105 of the Evidence Act and the advisory nature of expert testimony. - (!) It cites that DNA evidence should be corroborated by independent evidence and cannot override lack of supportive testimony. - (!) The court ultimately acquits the accused due to failure to establish reliable foundational facts and proper evidentiary corroboration. - (!) It discusses the need for reasonable doubt when foundational facts are not proven, even in stringent POSCO provisions. - (!) It relies on broader jurisprudence: DNA evidence is not infallible and must be tested against other reliable evidence.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
1. Instant Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(II) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, lays challenge to judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5th/6th March, 2019 passed by learned Special Judge, Kangra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Case No.67-P/VII/2014, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Sanjeev Kumar and another, whereby learned Court below while holding appellant ( hereinafter referred to as the accused) guilty of having committed the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012( for short ‘POCSO Act’), convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. For having bird’s eye view, facts relevant for proper adjudication of the case at hand are as under:-
(i). Victim/prosecutrix, who happened to be minor daughter of complainant Raj Sunani (PW-9) had gone to her school on 14.8.2014 to appear in her 10+1 examination, but since she did not return back in the evening, her mother (wife of the complainant) informed her hu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
