Failure To Examine Forensic Experts Whose Reports Are Relied Upon Vitiates Trial: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that failure to summon and examine forensic experts whose reports are relied upon by the trial court vitiates the trial and constitutes a failure of justice. The Court observed that the whole purpose of the trial is to ascertain the truth of the matter and all steps in the direction of unearthing the truth ought to be taken by the Court, even if the prosecution is remiss in its duty and the accused at the relevant point in time has not shown awareness.
A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat was hearing a confirmation case along with criminal appeals arising from the judgment dated 22 March 2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge vide which accused No.1 was convicted for offences under Sections 363, 302, 376(2), 376A, 376AB and 201 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and was sentenced to death for certain offences. Accused No.2, the mother of accused No.1, was convicted under Section 201 of the IPC and Section 21 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment. The case relied upon several forensic reports prepared by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory.
The High Court noted that the Sessions Court had indeed relied upon the chemical analysis and DNA reports while recording findings against the accused. The Court held that the trial court erred in directly admitting such reports in evidence merely because the defence had not made a request for summoning the experts. It observed:
“… the Sessions Court committed a grave error while observing in paragraph 142 of the impugned judgement and order that since the accused did not move any requisition for examining the chemical analysers for any specific cause, the reports of the chemical analysers at exhibit-166 (collectively) were being directly admitted in evidence without examining the chemical analysers.”
The Court observed that where scientific reports constitute significant incriminating material, the concerned experts ought to be examined as court witnesses so that both the prosecution and the defence may question them.
“… such witnesses ought to be court witnesses even if the prosecution fails in its duty to summon such crucial witnesses, if at all the CA reports / DNA reports are to be relied upon by the prosecution,” the Court observed.
The Court directed the trial court to record fresh statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC for the reason that the Sessions Court, while doing so, had put questions and circumstances to the accused persons jointly, which could not have been done. The High Court also ordered the release of accused No.2 on bail, considering that she had already undergone substantial incarceration and that the case was being remanded for further proceedings.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of summoning and examining the concerned forensic experts and permitting their cross-examination by the accused.
Case Title: State of Maharashtra v. Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi & Ors. [Confirmation Case No.3 of 2024]