Botany is Not Forensic Science: Supreme Court Slams Reliance on Unqualified DNA Expert in Death Penalty Case

“When liberty and life are at stake, scientific evidence cannot rest on half-truths and botched expertise”— In an extraordinary rebuke to prosecutorial and forensic practices in India, the Supreme Court of India set aside the conviction and death sentence of an accused in a minor’s rape and murder case, citing, among other reasons, the serious unreliability of DNA evidence that had been introduced and relied upon by an expert with no qualification in forensic science.

A three-judge Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, in a detailed judgment, expressed shock that Dr. Manoj Kumar Agarwal, a Ph.D. holder in Botany, was presented as a DNA expert in a case where a man’s life hung in the balance. The Court categorically held that scientific evidence tendered by an unqualified expert is not merely inadmissible—it is dangerous.

“Expertise Must Be Real, Not Imposed by Title—A Ph.D. in Plants Cannot Test Human DNA”

The entire conviction of Akhtar Ali, who was sentenced to death by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, rested on DNA evidence allegedly linking him to semen samples recovered from the victim’s body. However, the Supreme Court tore apart the so-called scientific basis of this evidence.

The Court noted: “The so-called DNA expert was admittedly holding a Ph.D. in Botany. He had no specialised training in forensic science, DNA extraction, profiling, or interpretation of results concerning human tissues.”

Rejecting the testimony of Dr. Agarwal outright, the Court declared: “Expert opinion must derive from demonstrable, specialised knowledge. A degree in Botany does not qualify a person to opine on genetic material extracted from a human body.”

The judgment warned that such forensic shortcuts endanger not just the rights of the accused, but also the integrity of the judicial process itself.

“Evidence Can’t Be Called Scientific Simply Because it Comes in a Lab Report—It Must Withstand Scientific Scrutiny”

The apex court highlighted the serious procedural inconsistencies in the collection, handling, and analysis of DNA samples. Not only was the expert unqualified, but the results themselves were medically implausible. The DNA profile of the accused was allegedly found in the cervical swab, but absent in vaginal swabs and slides taken from the same anatomical region.

The Court observed: “It defies scientific logic and medical expectation that semen would be present in the cervix but absent in the vagina. Such a scenario is not just improbable—it is practically impossible.”

The Bench went further to say that the chain of custody for the DNA samples was also compromised, casting doubt on the entire foundation of the prosecution case.

“The procedure for obtaining and transporting DNA samples was opaque. There is no explanation of how, where, or when the samples were collected and matched. This raises a very real concern of manipulation.”

“Death Cannot Be Ordered on Presumption or Improvised Science”: Court Warns Against Misuse of Forensics in Criminal Trials

The Court reiterated that when a case hinges on forensic evidence, especially one as decisive as DNA, the standards must be “not just high, but unassailable.”

The judgment referred to previous jurisprudence, including State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jai Chand and Selvi v. State of Karnataka, to underscore the need for qualified experts, proper protocols, and transparency in the scientific process.

The Court said: “DNA evidence is not magic. It is a science—and like all science, it is only as good as the expert who performs and explains it. In this case, both science and expert were found wanting.”

“Fabricated Science Is No Less Dangerous Than Fabricated Confession”: Supreme Court Rescues Criminal Jurisprudence from Pseudo-Forensics

In acquitting both Akhtar Ali and co-accused Prem Pal Verma, the Supreme Court made it clear that death sentence or life imprisonment must not rest on evidence that fails basic admissibility and scientific standards.

This case will likely go down in Indian legal history as a landmark reminder that forensic evidence is not immune from judicial scrutiny, and that expert opinion, unless drawn from actual expertise, is no evidence at all.

The Court’s words are a lasting indictment: “There can be no greater miscarriage of justice than sentencing a man to death on the strength of pseudo-scientific evidence presented by an unqualified expert.”

Date of Decision: 10 September 2025