Proper collection, preservation, and analysis of DNA evidence are vital for its reliability in sexual offense cases, which affect the conviction outcomes.

Shri Ajay Tamrakar - Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1-State. Heard on I.A. No.32405/2024, which is first application under Section

430(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant Akaash Thakur S/o Shri Rajendra Singh Thakur.

2. The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment dated 04.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 , Mandla, District Mandla (M.P.) in case No. SC ATR/65/2020, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

3. Appellant's contention is two fold. Ms. Renu Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that firstly DNA report (Ex.P-26) states that "Bones of Abortus (Ex.A) gave DNA profile which reflects that it was biological child of the victim (Ex.B) and accused Akaash Thakur (Ex.G)".

Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA

4. It is submitted that these samples were collected on two dates, namely, on 15.09.2020 and 17.09.2020, whereas they were taken to FSL laboratory by PW-5 Deepanshu Janghela on 26.09.2020. Thus, it is submitted that samples were admittedly kept in Malkhana as is admitted by PW-6 Jagdish Jhariya and, therefore, they are required to explain the safe custody of the samples.

5. It is submitted that possibility of contamination of samples cannot be denied and in support places reliance on the judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court in case of Vijan Mandal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (decided on 12.02.2025 in Criminal Appeals No.1790/2019, 1812/2019 and 1722/2019 ), wherein in paragraph 30 while referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rahul Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 1 SCC 83 Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court has observed as under:-

"30. Very recently and finally, in the matter of Rahul (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court (three-Judges Bench), while considering the evidentiary value of DNA evidence and taking note of decision of Manoj (supra) held that the DNA evidence is in the nature of opinion evidence like any other opinion evidence, its probative value varies from case to case and held in Para-38 as under:

"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, Signature Not Verified Signed by: PUSHPENDRA would not prove its contents. The record shows that all the samples relating to the accused and 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."

6. It is also submitted that recently Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Kattavellai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1439, has made certain observations in regard to collection and dispatch of samples for DNA evidence, which are contained in paragraph 44 and are as under:-

"44. T