It would be extremely significant to note that the Supreme Court in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Kattavellai @ Devakar vs State of Tamil Nadu in Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019 and cited in Neutral Citation No.: 2025 INSC 845 and so also in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 703 that was pronounced as recently as on July 15, 2025 has acquitted a man while dealing with his appeal who was sentenced to death for the murders of a couple and the rape of the woman victim by a Trial Court in Tamil Nadu in 2018, citing grave procedural lapses in the handling of DNA evidence.

We need to note that the Apex Court in this leading case has issued a slew of binding nationwide guidelines to ensure proper collection, preservation and processing of DNA and other biological materials in criminal investigations with the requisite procedural safeguards. What also must be noted is that the top court directed the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to all High Courts and also the Director General of the Police of all States to ensure necessary compliance.

Before stating anything else in this notable judgment, the Apex Court while quoting HR Khanna J., in State of Punjab v Jagir Singh (1974) 3 SCC 277 states that:
A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is charged.

Crime is an event in real life and is the product of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the courts should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.

At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Justice Sanjay Karol for a Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice Vikram Nath, himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice Sandeep Mehta sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that:
A visit to the forest, while a narrow escape for two persons, turned fatal for another two. The genesis allegedly was greed, with the accused person wanting to take away jewellery to put to his use, but the end result was far worse. Two people who were in the prime of their youth were hastily and brutally made to meet their maker, well before they should have. This Court is now tasked with examining the correctness of guilt of the person (the appellant) who, according to the State, was responsible for this barbarity.

As we see, the Bench then lays bare in para 2 disclosing that:
The present Appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 13th March 2019, in Referred Trial [MD] No.1 of 2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, which, in turn, was preferred against the judgment dated 07th March 2018 in Special Sessions Case No.9 of 2013 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni, whereby the conviction of the Appellant under Section 302, 376 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 , came to be affirmed. The Trial Court imposed the death penalty on the Appellant-convict, which also came to be affirmed by the High Court.

Briefly stated, the Bench while dwelling on the facts of the case specifies in para 3 stating that:

The incident in question, relates to the unfortunate death of two young people. The prosecution case as emerging from the record, as also set out by the Courts below, is as follows:

1. 14th May 2011 Incident:
   • D1 (Ezhil Muthalvan) left home on father's motorbike, saying he was going to play cricket.
   • D2 left home claiming she was going to college.
   • They both met at Suruli Falls, a known meeting place.
2. Presence of another couple:
   • Rajkumar (PW-5) and Bhagyalakshmi (not examined) were also present.
   • Appellant-convict demanded jewellery from Bhagyalakshmi.
   • Jewellery was imitation; he threw it back and approached D1 and D2.
   • PW-5 and Bhagyalakshmi fled after noticing the conversation.
3. Robbery and Murder:
   • Appellant-convict threatened D1 and D2 to part with valuables.
   • On their refusal, he allegedly killed them.
4. Complaint by D2’s father:
   • Ganesan (PW-4) filed FIR (Crime No.30/2011) on 15th May 2011 under Section 366 IPC.
5. T.I. Parade:
   • Held on 6th June 2011, PW-5 identified the accused.
6. Prosecution evidence:
   • 56 witnesses examined.
   • 77 documents and 29 material objects submitted.
   • Appellant claimed innocence but did not produce defense evidence.

Significant Judicial Directions Regarding DNA Evidence (Para 44):

1. Collection of DNA Samples:
   • FIR number and date
   • Relevant section and statute
   • Details of Investigating Officer (I.O.) and Police Station
   • Requisite serial number
   • Document must be signed by:
     • Medical professional present
     • Investigating Officer
     • Independent witnesses (if available; efforts must be documented)
2. Responsibility of I.O.:
   • Transport samples to police station or hospital
   • Ensure dispatch to forensic lab within 48 hours
   • Delay, if any, must be recorded with reason in case diary
3. Storage of DNA Evidence:
   • No opening, alteration, or resealing without court authorisation
   • Statement from a qualified medical professional required
   • Such a step must be essential for justice
4. Chain of Custody:
   • Maintain a Chain of Custody Register for every movement of evidence
   • Each entry must have counter-signatures and reasons
   • Register to be part of the Trial Court record
   • Failure to maintain may hold I.O. responsible
   • Directors General of Police to prepare and distribute sample forms and instructions

Equally significant is that the Bench then propounds explicitly in para 45 holding that:
Consequent to the above discussion, we have no hesitation in holding that none of the circumstances posited by the prosecution are found to be conclusively proved against the Appellant-convict. The chain of circumstantial evidence in no way points to a singular hypothesis, that is the guilt of the accused, ruling out his innocence or involvement of none else in the crime. As a result, the conviction of the Appellant-convict is vacated. He is directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case. The appeal is allowed.

Finally, the Bench then concludes by holding in para 46 that:
Recently, this Court, in a case concerning violation of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement-2024 INSC 739 and where the accused person had been in prolonged detention, made some observations regarding Article 21 of the Constitution of India. They are extracted below for reference:

28. Some day, the courts, especially the Constitutional Courts, will have to take a call on a peculiar situation that arises in our justice delivery system. There are cases where clean acquittal is granted by the criminal courts to the accused after very long incarceration as an undertrial. When we say clean acquittal, we are excluding the cases where the witnesses have turned hostile or there is a bona fide defective investigation. In such cases of clean acquittal, crucial years in the life of the accused are lost. In a given case, it may amount to violation of rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution which may give rise to a claim for compensation.

29. As stated earlier, the appellant has been incarcerated for 15 months or more for the offence punishable under the PMLA. In the facts of the case, the trial of the scheduled offences and, consequently, the PMLA offence is not likely to be completed in three to four years or even more. If the appellant’s detention is continued, it will amount to an infringement of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India of speedy trial.

Kattavellai @ Devakar has secured a clean acquittal here as well. Let it be clarified that we are not commenting as to whether the day of reckoning with this question has arrived, but we may only see that in case such an approach is adopted, we would not be breaking new ground but only affirming our commitment to the constitutional guarantee of Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Law Commission of India in its 277th report titled ‘Wrongful Prosecution Miscarriage of Justice: Legal Remedies’ dealt with this issue. However, the Report confined the understanding of ‘wrongful prosecution’ to include only malicious prosecution, and the prosecution initiated without good faith. It does not, therefore, directly deal with the situation with which we are confronted. In this case, as is obvious, the accused was taken into custody, and it is the judicial process that has taken such a long time to come to a conclusion. The worrying feature here is that the conviction had no legs to stand on whatsoever and yet the Appellant-convict has been in custody for years. In foreign jurisdictions such as the United States of America (M.J. Ryan, Compensation for Wrongful Convictions in the United States in Compensation for Wrongful Convictions – a Comparative Perspective, Jasinski and Kremens (Eds.) 2023.), acquittal after a long period of incarceration has led Courts to direct States to award compensation to the persons who suffered behind bars, only to be eventually held innocent. This right to compensation has been recognised by both Federal and State statutes. There are two ways that compensation can be claimed – tort claims/civil rights suits/moral bills of obligation and, statutory claims. Given the variety of statutes across jurisdictions grounds for compensations/procedures vary significantly.

Well, it is for the legislature to consider this aspect.

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to all High Courts and also the Directors General of the Police of all States to ensure necessary compliance. The Police Academies of the States are requested to examine the necessity of conducting training of the Investigating Officers to ensure full compliance with the requisite precautions and procedures in accordance with the directions issued herein above. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut-250001, Uttar Pradesh.