"Justice Hurried Is Justice Buried:” MP High Court Allows POCSO Accused To Summon Expert Witness, Says Quick Disposal Cannot Affect Fair Trial

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an accused cannot be denied the opportunity to summon and examine forensic experts merely on technical grounds such as delay in filing an application or pendency of old cases, observing that expeditious disposal of cases cannot come at the cost of a fair trial.

Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh allowed a criminal revision filed by the accused challenging orders of the Special Judge (POCSO), Rewa, which had rejected his applications under Sections 91 and 233 CrPC (and corresponding provisions under the BNSS) seeking to call defence witnesses, including forensic experts, and had instead fixed the case for final arguments.

The Trial Court had refused the request on the grounds that the case fell within the category of the “oldest 100 cases” requiring early disposal and that under Section 293 CrPC, the report of a Government forensic expert is admissible without formal proof.

Disagreeing, the High Court clarified that although Section 293 permits use of expert reports as evidence, the court retains discretion to summon and examine the expert, especially where the defence disputes the report. It held that once the accused objects to the DNA or forensic evidence and seeks to cross-examine the expert, such a request cannot be rejected on hyper-technical considerations.

Relying on the Division Bench decision in In Reference v. Anokhilal and the Supreme Court's ruling in Rahul v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court emphasised that merely exhibiting a scientific report does not prove its contents and that proper opportunity must be given to test such evidence.

Importantly, the Court observed: “When the accused objects to the DNA report and wants to examine the expert witness, the application cannot be rejected on technical grounds… Quick disposal does not mean conducting trial in a hurried manner. Justice delayed is justice denied, but justice hurried is justice buried.”

Holding that denial of the opportunity would prejudice the defence and affect the fairness of trial, the Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the Trial Court to summon the expert and other witnesses and record their statements before proceeding further.

Case Title: Avinash Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Case No.: Criminal Revision No. 4646 of 2024

Click here to read order