Ensuring Fair Trials in Capital Punishment Cases: Mandatory Examination of DNA Experts

1. Introduction

The case of Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 150) marks a significant moment in Indian criminal jurisprudence concerning the right to a fair trial. Decided by the Supreme Court of India on January 16, 2025, it deals with the conviction and sentencing of two accused—who were awarded the death penalty for the alleged sexual assault and attempted murder of a young girl—and their subsequent appeals.

Central to this case was the reliance placed on a DNA profiling report without examining its authors in court. The appellants argued that their rights were gravely prejudiced because they were not given a sufficient opportunity to challenge and cross-examine the experts who prepared the DNA report. The Supreme Court scrutinized whether the trial and High Court judgments met the standards required for ensuring the accused’s constitutional right to a fair trial, especially in capital punishment cases.

This commentary explores the background of this case, summarizes the key points of the Supreme Court's decision, and provides an in-depth analysis of the legal principles, precedents cited, and the potential impact on the criminal justice system.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the two accused—originally sentenced to death by the Trial Court and whose sentence was confirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. While the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations and the horrific nature of the crime, it found procedural infirmities so severe as to vitiate the entire trial.

Specifically, the Court noted:

The primary incriminating evidence was a DNA report linking the accused with the crime scene and the victim.
The Trial Court admitted the DNA report as evidence without summoning or examining any of the scientific experts who authored it.
The defense was deprived of the opportunity to effectively cross-examine the experts about methodology, chain of custody, and interpretation of the DNA findings.
Such procedural omissions violated the accused’s right to a fair trial, particularly in a case where capital punishment was at stake.

As a result, the Supreme Court exercised its authority under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and Article 142 of the Constitution, quashed the convictions and sentences, and remanded the case to the Trial Court for a de novo consideration on specific issues:

Summoning the scientific experts who prepared the DNA report (to be examined as Court witnesses).
Ensuring the accused have an opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses.
Allowing the accused to be represented by experienced counsel in line with guidelines for capital cases.
Revisiting the entire evidence with emphasis on ensuring that the chain of custody, the correctness of the DNA analysis, and the relevant scientific procedures are properly established in court.

3. Analysis

A. Precedents Cited

The Court relied heavily on two notable decisions:

Anokhilal v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 20 SCC 196:
This decision emphasized that in capital cases, the trial must be conducted with heightened scrutiny and fairness. The Supreme Court there set aside a death sentence when the trial got over in undue haste, and the accused were not given a meaningful chance to challenge the DNA report.
Naveen @ Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1365):
The Court quashed a conviction because the DNA and other forensic reports had been admitted without examining the authors. The Court underscored that summoning those who prepared forensic reports is critical for ensuring the defense’s full opportunity to test the reliability of such evidence.

Several other cases were also referred to illustrate the importance of summoning and adequately examining forensic experts, including:

Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs (2023) 1 SCC 83, underlining the need to ensure a thorough proof of chain of custody and reliability of DNA findings.
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158, where the Supreme Court reminded that trials must be a search for truth, rather than an exercise in mere procedural formality.

B. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s primary concern was the fairness of the trial. While the Trial Court may legitimately rely on Section 293 of the CrPC to formally admit forensic reports, the Supreme Court clarified that reliance on this provision does not automatically exempt the prosecution from producing the expert witness. In complex cases—especially those involving capital punishment and intricate forensic evidence—merely marking a report as an exhibit through police personnel is insufficient.

The Court focused on the right of the accused to cross-examine the scientific officer(s) responsible for crucial forensic analysis. By failing to call these individuals to testify, the Trial Court denied the accused an opportunity to probe the methodology applied, question potential errors in DNA profiling, and address discrepancies in sample collection or chain of custody. This omission, in the Supreme Court’s view, rendered the conviction unsafe.

Another critical aspect of the Court’s reasoning arose from the principle that “justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.” In capital punishment cases, where “the highest degree of caution” is mandated, procedural fairness cannot be compromised. The DNA report, being the fulcrum of the prosecution’s case, demanded greater scrutiny because of its technical complexity and the irreversibility of a death sentence if it proves to be a miscarriage of justice.

C. Impact

The ruling has broad implications for the conduct of trials in serious criminal cases. Key takeaways include:

Heightened Safeguards in Capital Cases: Courts must allow a thorough examination of every key piece of evidence, especially DNA and forensic analyses, by ensuring the expert(s) who prepared it are available for cross-examination.
Importance of Chain of Custody: Prosecutors must ensure documentation is foolproof. Any missing link or misuse of Section 293 CrPC will likely be viewed as harming the fairness of the proceeding.
Protection of Accused’s Rights: The Supreme Court reiterated that the right to a fair trial is non-negotiable, even in the face of the public’s demand for speedy criminal justice.
Short Timelines vs. Quality of Justice: While swift punishment is a public good, the decision highlights that expedition must not override fundamental fairness and transparency.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Several intricate legal and scientific concepts surfaced in the dispute:

DNA Profiling Procedures and Chain of Custody: “Chain of custody” means the documented path of evidence from collection to production in court. Where DNA is involved, the samples (e.g., blood, saliva) must be carefully tracked, sealed, and uniquely marked at every step. Any break in this chain can cast doubt on the integrity of the result.
Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): This provision allows certain government scientific reports to be used as evidence without calling the expert to testify. However, if the defense or the Court deems it essential to test the veracity of the report, the expert must generally be called to testify—particularly in death penalty cases.
De Novo Trial: In this judgment, the Supreme Court ordered that the trial be partially redone. This means the case is sent back to the Trial Court to fill the evidentiary gaps by examining material witnesses—here, the DNA experts—followed by fresh arguments and a new judgment, ensuring fair opportunity for both sides.
Capital Punishment Hurdle: Because death penalty cases warrant the highest level of scrutiny, the Court demanded stricter compliance with fair trial standards. Mistakes in evidence handling or denial of cross-examination can lead to the setting aside of a capital punishment verdict.

5. Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 150) reaffirms the fundamental importance of a fair trial, particularly when the stakes are at their highest. Courts cannot merely rely on formal exhibits of forensic reports when experts’ testimonies are crucial for clarifying the authenticity and reliability of technical evidence. This hallmark ruling ensures that the accused’s right to cross-examine such experts remains protected and that the judicial process is transparent and just. As a result, the judgment not only sets aside earlier convictions but also serves as a guiding precedent for courts to scrupulously observe procedural fairness, especially in cases involving the death penalty.