PRAKASH NISHAD @ KEWAT ZINAK NISHAD v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.53A – Non-compliance with – Held:In the present case, none of the witness deposed the fact of medical examination of the appellant as stipulated u/s.53A – No reason was given for having decided that there was no need to comply with the provisions of s.53A– Samples of the blood and semen of the appellant were sent for forensic analysis – However, there is nothing on record to establish as to who took such samples, on what date, on how many occasions and why were they not sent all at once – None of the police officials testified to the formalities of keeping the samples safe and secure being complied with – There is only one document (Ext.79) on record, indicating the appellant to have been medically examined – But even this document does not reveal sample of the body part being drawn – In any event, the doctor who conducted such examination did not testify the correctness of the contents thereof – Also, the document itself is uninspiring confidence having certain interpolations therein – Additionally, the document does not fall true to the statutory requirements imposed u/s.53A – This is a glaring lapse in the investigation of this crime, for a six year-old child was sexually assaulted on both of the private parts – Medical examination of the appellant would have resulted into ascertainment of such assault – Samples when collected are to be sent to the concerned laboratory as soon as possible – Delay in sending the samples is unexplained – “Without any delay” and “chain of custody” aspects which are indispensable to the vitality of such evidence, were not complied with – Thus, in the instant case, the DNA Report cannot be the basis to send appellant to the gallows – Maharashtra Police Manual – Appendix XXIV – Evidence – Criminal Law. 153 A B C D E F Evidence – Value of DNA evidence – Discussed. Criminal Law – Crime involving severe punishments such as imprisonment for life or the sentence of death – Role and responsibilities of the investigating authorities, not adhered to – Deprecated. G Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The Appellant did not know how to read and write in Marathi. This being the position, this Court has highlighted the importance of the appellant being able to H