Convictions based on DNA evidence require rigorous adherence to procedural norms; failure to ensure sample integrity can invalidate findings.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2017, passed by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur, in Sessions Trial No.39/2016, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Sections 315 , 318 & 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced as under with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently.

CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s. 315 of IPC. :

• Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

• U/s. 318 of IPC. :

• Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.

• U/s. 302 of IPC. :

• Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that from 06.03.2016 to 09.03.2016 at 7:00 a.m. the appellant strangulated her newly born male child and murdered him and in order to screen herself from the offence, she thrown the dead body of child into the field of Mohan Singh and thereby she has committed the offence. Pursuant to complaint made by Sagar Nayak (PW-13) to the police, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-13, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-24, spot maps were prepared vide Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-27. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-16 and the dead body of newly born child was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr.

P.C. Ekka (PW-4), who proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-4, according to which, cause of death was stated to be asphyxia due to throttling and neck of newly born baby was compressed on left side and bone of neck found separated and loose. MLC of accused/appellant was also conducted vide Ex.P-7 and she was found lactating. Hair of child was seized on 14.03.2016 vide Ex.P-11 and blood sample of appellant was taken on 22.05.2016 vide Ex.P-12, which were sent for DNA profiling test by the Superintendent of Police, Jashpur on 25.05.2016 vide Ex.P-43. The DNA report is Ex.P-47 in which, results of examination is mentioned as “the source of exhibit A (bunch of hair said to be of deceased male child) yielded DNA profile of male origin and is matching with the DNA profile of the source of exhibit B (bloodstains said to be of Ku. Rangpati Nayak). The maternal alleles present in the DNA profile of the source of exhibit A are accounted for being present in the DNA profile of the source of exhibit B, as shown in the table”.

It concluded as “results from the DNA test performed on the exhibits provided are sufficient to conclude that the biological relationship of parent and child exists between the sources of exhibit B (Ku. Rangpati Nayak) and exhibit A (deceased male child)”. The FSL report is Ex.P- 39 in which blood was found on the clothe (salwar) of the appellant. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 315 , 318 & 302 of the I.P.C. before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that she has not committed any offence and she has been falsely implicated.

3. In order to bring home the offences, prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 49 documents and the appellant-accused in support of her defence has not examined any witness, but has exhibited the