The Supreme Court recently set aside the death penalty awarded to the appellants, holding that reliance on the DNA report without examining scientific experts led to a failure of justice, thereby vitiating the trial.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta noted that the trial was completed in less than two months without affording the accused a proper opportunity to defend themselves. The Court found this undue haste to be inconsistent with the principles of a fair trial, especially in a case involving capital punishment.
“The trial in the case at hand was concluded without providing an appropriate opportunity of defense to the accused 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 scientific experts while relying upon the DNA report has definitely led to a failure of justice, thereby vitiating the trial,” the Court observed.
Background
The appellants were prosecuted for multiple offences, including kidnapping and attempted murder of a minor girl. They were sentenced to death under Section 376(DB) IPC (punishment for gang rape of a woman under 12 years of age), a decision later confirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved, they approached the Supreme Court, contending that the trial was unfair due to the non-examination of scientific experts and the lack of access to complete laboratory documents.
Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had failed to examine the scientific experts responsible for conducting the DNA profiling, which formed the core evidence in the case.
“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 the 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,” the Court remarked.
The Court referred to Naveen @ Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh, where a similar failure to summon scientific experts led to the remand of the case for a fresh trial. It reiterated that an accused facing the possibility of a death sentence must be given an absolute and non-negotiable right to a fair trial.
Directions for Fresh Trial
In light of these findings, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for a fresh trial, directing the trial court to summon the concerned scientific experts as court witnesses, allowing both parties to examine them.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that if the accused were not represented by a counsel of their choice, a defense lawyer must be appointed as per the guidelines laid down in Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. In Anokhilal, the Court had mandated that only advocates with a minimum of 10 years of practice should be appointed as amicus curiae or legal aid counsel in cases involving the possibility of a life sentence or death penalty.
The Supreme Court further instructed the trial court to complete the proceedings within four months.
Before concluding, the Court clarified that its observations were confined to the accused’s right to seek examination of the scientific experts and should not be construed as comments on the merits of the case.
