1. Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar v. Mohamed Haji Latif (1968 SC)

Core principle:

A party in possession of the best evidence must produce it; failure leads to adverse inference.

Facts:

• The dispute involved ownership and income from certain properties.
• One party had exclusive control over key documentary evidence showing income and title details.
• That party deliberately did not produce the records in court.

Issue:

Whether the court can presume against a party who withholds best evidence.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held:

• Courts can and should draw an adverse inference when a party withholds evidence in their possession.
• The burden of proof cannot be avoided by simply refusing to produce documents or material evidence.

Relevance to destruction of samples:

If forensic samples (blood, DNA, etc.) are destroyed or not preserved by the party controlling them, the court can presume they were unfavorable.

2. Tomaso Bruno v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015 SC)

Core principle:

Failure to preserve scientific or electronic evidence (like CCTV footage) can justify adverse inference against the prosecution.

Facts:

• The accused were charged with murder of an Italian couple.
• The prosecution failed to produce CCTV footage from relevant locations.
• No explanation was given for its absence.

Issue:

Whether missing CCTV evidence affects the prosecution case.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court held:

• In modern investigation, scientific and electronic evidence is crucial.
• Non-production of such evidence allows courts to draw adverse inference under Section 114(g).
• It creates doubt about the prosecution’s version.

Relevance:

If biological samples or forensic exhibits are destroyed or not preserved properly, courts may treat the prosecution’s case with suspicion.

3. Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin (2012 SC)

Core principle:

Burden of proof lies on the party asserting facts; failure to produce best evidence allows adverse inference.

Facts:

• The dispute involved land acquisition and compensation.
• The claimant failed to produce relevant documentary evidence available to them.

Issue:

Whether courts can draw inference when evidence is withheld.

Judgment:

The Supreme Court clarified:

• The party holding the best evidence must produce it.
• Courts are justified in drawing adverse inference when material evidence is withheld.
• However, such inference is discretionary, not automatic.

Relevance to destruction of samples:

If a party is responsible for preserving forensic samples and fails to do so, courts may presume that the evidence would have weakened their case.

4. Armory v. Delamirie (1722, English Common Law)

Core principle:

Best possible inference is drawn against a party who destroys or fails to produce evidence.

Facts:

• A chimney sweep boy found a jewel and took it to a goldsmith for valuation.
• The goldsmith removed the stones and returned only the empty setting.
• The boy had no way to prove the original value.

Issue:

How to determine value when evidence is destroyed by defendant?

Judgment:

The court held:

• Since the goldsmith wrongfully withheld or destroyed evidence (stones), the court would presume the jewel was of the highest possible value.
• The inference was drawn against the wrongdoer.

Relevance:

This is one of the earliest foundations of spoliation doctrine:
If forensic samples are destroyed by a party, courts assume the most unfavorable outcome for them.

5. Illustration from Section 114(g), Indian Evidence Act applied in practice (various SC rulings)

Although not a single case, courts repeatedly apply this principle:

Principle:

When evidence is:

• intentionally destroyed,
• not preserved,
• or withheld without explanation,

courts may presume it would be unfavorable.

Application in forensic/sample cases:

• If blood samples in a criminal case are not properly sealed or get contaminated due to prosecution negligence.
• If seized narcotics are not produced in court after collection.
• If DNA samples are lost by forensic labs or investigating agencies.

Courts often:

• reject prosecution evidence,
• give benefit of doubt to accused,
• or order retrial depending on seriousness.

6. V.C. Shukla v. State (1980 SC)

Core principle:

Documentary evidence must be properly proved and preserved; manipulation or missing documents weaken the case.

Facts:

• It involved misuse of documents in a criminal conspiracy case.
• Certain key documents were not reliably produced.

Judgment:

• The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of authentic, intact documentary evidence.
• Any doubt due to missing or altered evidence goes against the party relying on it.

Relevance:

If samples or exhibits are destroyed or tampered with, the evidentiary chain breaks, weakening the case.

Key Legal Principles Derived from All Cases

From these judgments, courts consistently apply the following rules:

1. Adverse inference rule

If evidence is destroyed or not produced, courts presume it was unfavorable.

2. Best evidence rule

A party must produce the strongest available evidence in their possession.

3. Chain of custody importance (especially forensic samples)

If samples are not properly preserved, sealed, or documented, their reliability is rejected.

4. Presumption under Section 114(g)

Courts are empowered to presume missing evidence would go against the party responsible.

Application in “Destruction of Samples” Litigation (Modern Context)

This doctrine is now heavily used in:

• Narcotics cases (NDPS Act)
• DNA and rape cases
• Murder investigations
• CCTV/electronic surveillance cases
• Medical negligence cases
• Environmental sample testing disputes

Typical consequences:

• Evidence excluded from consideration
• Benefit of doubt to accused
• Dismissal of weak prosecution cases
• Sometimes compensation or disciplinary action against investigating agencies