A London-based DNA expert, who deposed as defence witness in Aarushi-Hemraj murder case, on Monday sought to punch holes in the report of a forensic expert who had examined DNA samples of the victims, saying it was not in conformity with international standards. Andre Semikhodski told a special CBI court here that the report of B K Mahapatara, who examined DNA samples of Aarushi and Hemraj and other exhibits, ‘has not been prepared as per standards of International Forensic Community’.
Mahapatra is a forensic scientist at Central Forensic Science Laboratory Delhi and had prepared the report for the prosecution.
Deposing before additional sessions judge Shyam Lal, the foreign expert said that he also wanted to examine the material exhibits like ‘khukri’, Ballantine bottle etc as well as the raw data used by Mahapatra to prepare his reports. ‘According to international forensic community’s standards, any forensic scientist, while testifying or analysing DNA evidence, has to give Random Match Probability (RMP). After calculation of RMP, forensic scientist has to depose in the court,’ he told the court. ‘But, Mahapatra has not calculated the RMP’.
He also told the court that in none of his reports, Mahaptra has mentioned analysis or results of DNA profiling of samples, which were taken from victims and other suspects and this makes it ‘impossible to put his findings within the frame of current criminal case.’
Semikhodski, who is the last defence witness, said that without getting raw data, he could not reach any conclusion on various aspects related to this case.
‘Since the complete raw data have not been supplied to me and so I am not in position either to concur with or disagree with the report given by Mahapatra,’ the expert said. ‘Mahapatra had deposed before the court that he doesn’t interpret a mixed profile and therefore his capability is questioned and his statement may lead to miscarriage of justice,’ Semikhodskii said in the court.
Mahapatra is a forensic scientist at Central Forensic Science Laboratory Delhi and had prepared the report for the prosecution.
Deposing before additional sessions judge Shyam Lal, the foreign expert said that he also wanted to examine the material exhibits like ‘khukri’, Ballantine bottle etc as well as the raw data used by Mahapatra to prepare his reports. ‘According to international forensic community’s standards, any forensic scientist, while testifying or analysing DNA evidence, has to give Random Match Probability (RMP). After calculation of RMP, forensic scientist has to depose in the court,’ he told the court. ‘But, Mahapatra has not calculated the RMP’.
He also told the court that in none of his reports, Mahaptra has mentioned analysis or results of DNA profiling of samples, which were taken from victims and other suspects and this makes it ‘impossible to put his findings within the frame of current criminal case.’
Semikhodski, who is the last defence witness, said that without getting raw data, he could not reach any conclusion on various aspects related to this case.
‘Since the complete raw data have not been supplied to me and so I am not in position either to concur with or disagree with the report given by Mahapatra,’ the expert said. ‘Mahapatra had deposed before the court that he doesn’t interpret a mixed profile and therefore his capability is questioned and his statement may lead to miscarriage of justice,’ Semikhodskii said in the court.