PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [SANJAY KAROL, J.] party, especially in the presence of other cogent and reliable evidence on record in favour of such party.” 179 A (Emphasis supplied) 65. Referring to the above case, a three-Judge bench in Manoj v. State of M.P.9, through S. Ravindra Bhat J., observed; “158. This Court, therefore, has relied on DNA reports, in the past, where the guilt of an accused was sought to be established. Notably, the reliance was to corroborate. This Court highlighted the need to ensure quality in the testing and eliminate the possibility of contamination of evidence; it also held that being an opinion, the probative value of such evidence has to vary from case to case.” 66. In the present case, even though, the DNA evidence by way of a report was present, its reliability is not infallible, especially not so in light of the fact that the uncompromised nature of such evidence cannot be established; and other that cogent evidence as can be seen from our discussion above, is absent almost in its entirety. B C D 67. Unfortunately, the courts below did not go into all the aforesaid aspects and presumptuously assumed the guilt of the appellant and held him to have committed the crime. 68. What prevailed upon the courts below, it appears, was the testimony of the doctor PW 4 - Dr. Anjali Pimple, who conducted the post-mortem and, “the clinching medical evidence” and “clinching DNA report”. It is on the basis of the said medical evidence that the courts, without recording any findings with regard to the circumstances being unrefuted, convicted the appellant despite there being contradictions, material in nature, belying the prosecution case and the veracity of the statement of witnesses, so also impeaching their credibility. 69. Further, what weighed with the courts below is more so evident from the findings returned by the High Court, i.e., nature of the alleged crime being indeed one of the heart-breaking, horrific and most depraved kind, prompting the confirmation of the death sentence awarded by the Trial Court, considering the case to be the rarest of rare. E F G 70. It is true that the unfortunate incident did take place, and the prosecutrix sustained multiple injuries on her body and surely must have 9 (2023) 2 SCC 353 H