Chain of custody records how investigators handle evidence from the crime scene to the courtroom. It shows that no one tampered with the evidence and confirms it’s the same item collected during the investigation. Without this documentation, the court may not trust the evidence.
Although it may seem brief and bureaucratic, maintaining a robust chain of custody has a direct impact on the outcome of a case. As one authoritative source notes, it assures the court that investigators have preserved the evidence’s authenticity — that it is the same item seized at the crime scene and has remained fully accounted for throughout
Why Chain Of Custody Matters?
Maintaining this chain isn’t just a legal formality—it safeguards justice. When the chain is airtight, the court can trace exactly who touched the evidence, when, where, and why. This layered transparency protects against tampering, contamination, or deliberate planting of evidence.
Moreover, a clear chain allows the court to summon any handler for testimony regarding their role, strengthening trust in the process. Conversely, when gaps appear, evidence may be declared inadmissible, which can seriously weaken the prosecution’s case.
Key Elements of a Proper Chain
Every movement of the evidence must be logged, including details like description, case ID, place, and time of seizure, and names of handlers. There are two critical elements:
- A chronological record: documenting dates, times, the sequence of transfers, and signatures.
- A logical justification: explaining the necessity of each step—from seizure and transport to analysis and storage
Indian courts emphasize both, requiring clear proof that every transfer or analysis was justified and traceable.
Indian Legal Framework
Interestingly, neither the Indian Evidence Act nor CrPC mentions chain of custody directly. However, courts have filled in this gap by relying on principles under Section 136 of the Evidence Act, which empowers judges to demand proof of underlying facts before admitting evidence.
Specific statutes like the NDPS Act do include tighter rules. For instance, Section 55 requires NDPS evidence to be sealed and securely held, while Section 57 mandates reporting seizures within 48 hours.
Judicial Interpretations and Landmark Cases
Prakash Nishad v. State of Maharashtra (2023) stands out. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused in a rape case because DNA evidence was submitted without clear documentation of who collected and when, creating “a broken chain of custody”.
In Ashit Biswas v. State of W.B. (2024), the Calcutta High Court observed that conflicting witness accounts severed the link between seizure and presentation, leading to doubts about the authenticity of seized narcotics.
Yet, consistency remains elusive. In Mustak v. State of Gujarat, a missing link in documenting bullet transfer was overlooked by the Court, raising concerns about how strictly courts enforce chain requirements.
Digital Evidence and Evolving Standards In Chain Of Custody
With digital forensics gaining prominence, maintaining chain integrity faces new challenges. Digital evidence—like server logs, emails, and metadata—can be easily altered during transfer or analysis. As Kappillil Anilkumar notes, even opening a file changes its metadata, so every access must be logged and sealed
India’s Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (2023) acknowledges these challenges. It emphasises robust data retention, metadata preservation, and even explores blockchain-based chain tracking for digital files
Maintaining the Chain in Practice
In India, chain of custody is often proved through multiple documents:
- The police station diary and property (Malkhana) register
- Seizure forms, road challans, and dispatch receipts
- Lab receipts and FSL reports
These help paint a traceable paper trail. While formalized chain forms are not uniformly used, select labs—especially for biological evidence—have begun insisting on them
On the forensic front, ISO-compliant protocols are being recommended, especially in FSLs involved in biological and digital evidence handling. This includes tamper-evident sealing, clear documentation, and regular audits.
Best Practices & Future Directions
Experts suggest several steps to tighten chain management:
- Seal samples with tamper-evident tapes immediately.
- Maintain logs of every handling, with signatures.
- Use standard forms, with time-stamped seals.
- Train personnel in proper collection and storage.
- Audit periodically, especially during Malkhana inspections.
- Bring labs on board—with ISO standards and custody audits
Blockchain-based logs have begun emerging as a promising future solution—especially for complex digital file transfers across agencies
In Indian law, the chain of custody is more than a bureaucratic checklist—it is a critical shield that protects the fairness and reliability of justice. As forensic and digital methods evolve, so too must our standards for documenting and preserving every link in the chain.
A broken link, no matter how small, can topple whole cases. But a strong chain assures courts—and the public—that cut-and-paste evidence doesn’t distort the truth. For legal professionals in India, strengthening these processes is not optional; it is essential to ensure justice is served, not undermined.