The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that convictions based on forensic reports - particularly DNA and chemical analysis - cannot stand without providing the accused an opportunity to cross-examine the analysts who prepared them. This ruling, issued in a capital case, underscores that procedural fairness is non-negotiable, even when the prosecution presents seemingly conclusive scientific evidence.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the brutal sexual assault and murder of a six-year-old girl in Pune. The accused, Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi, was charged under Sections 363, 302, 376(2), 376A, 376AB, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, along with Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. His mother, Sujata Mahipati Dalvi, was charged under Section 201 IPC and Section 21 POCSO for aiding in the concealment of the body. The prosecution’s case rested heavily on circumstantial evidence and twelve forensic reports from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Pune, including serology and DNA profiles.
Procedural History
- 2022: Victim’s body discovered; accused arrested on August 4, 2022.
- 2023: Charge sheet filed; charges framed by Sessions Court.
- March 2024: Sessions Court convicted Tejas and sentenced him to death under Sections 376A and 376AB IPC and Section 6 POCSO. Sujata was sentenced to seven years and six months.
- 2025: Accused filed multiple applications before the Bombay High Court, including Interim Application No.4190 of 2025, challenging the trial’s fairness.
- March 2026: High Court heard arguments on the admissibility of forensic evidence and the joint recording of Section 313 CrPC statements.
Relief Sought
The accused sought:
- Summoning and cross-examination of the chemical and DNA analysts who prepared the 12 forensic reports.
- Production of complete laboratory documentation, including raw data, calibration logs, and chain-of-custody records.
- Recording of fresh statements under Section 313 CrPC (now Section 351 BNSS) for each accused individually.
- Quashing of the conviction and remand for a fair retrial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether Section 313 of the CrPC and the principles of natural justice require the prosecution to summon forensic analysts as court witnesses when their reports form the basis of conviction, and whether failure to do so vitiates the trial even if the accused did not formally object at trial.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
Counsel for the accused relied on Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 359), arguing that:
- Forensic reports are testimonial in nature and fall under the right to confront witnesses.
- The trial court’s reliance on unexamined reports violated the accused’s right to a fair trial under Article 21.
- The reports were marked as collective exhibits without prior disclosure or opportunity to challenge their methodology.
- Joint recording of Section 313 statements denied individualized defense opportunities.
For the Respondent/State
The State conceded that the analysts were not summoned and acknowledged the precedent set in Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati. It did not dispute that the reports were critical to the conviction. However, it argued:
- The accused failed to raise objections during trial, thereby waiving the right.
- The forensic reports were prepared by a government laboratory and presumed reliable.
- The gravity of the offense warranted deference to the trial court’s findings.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the right to cross-examine scientific witnesses as a component of fair trial under Article 21 and the principle of audi alteram partem. It held that forensic reports are not mere documents but testimonial evidence requiring the opportunity for adversarial testing.
"The failure of the trial Court to ensure the deposition of the scientific experts while relying upon the DNA report, has definitely led to the failure of justice thereby, vitiating the trial."
The Court emphasized that the Supreme Court in Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati had unequivocally held that when scientific reports are pivotal to conviction, especially in capital cases, the trial court must summon the analysts as court witnesses - even if the prosecution neglects its duty. The Bombay HC reaffirmed this, noting that the Sessions Court erred by assuming that silence from the defense equated to waiver.
The Court further held that the joint recording of Section 313 statements was legally impermissible. Each accused must be questioned individually to ensure their responses are not influenced or coerced by the presence of the co-accused.
Crucially, the Court clarified that remand is not a de novo trial. The existing evidence remains intact; only the forensic analysts must be examined, and the Section 313 statement must be re-recorded in light of the new evidence.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Bombay High Court quashed the conviction and death sentence, holding that reliance on unexamined forensic reports vitiates a trial. The matter was remanded to the Sessions Court for limited purposes: summoning the analysts for cross-examination, producing full laboratory documentation, and recording fresh Section 313 statements individually. The mother’s conviction was upheld, but she was granted bail.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Cross-Examination of Forensic Analysts Is Mandatory
- Practitioners must now routinely file applications under Section 311 BNSS to summon forensic experts whenever their reports are relied upon.
- Merely marking reports as exhibits without calling the authors is no longer sufficient - even if no objection was raised at trial.
- Courts must proactively ensure compliance; failure to summon analysts renders convictions vulnerable to reversal.
Laboratory Documentation Must Be Disclosed
- Defense counsel should demand complete access to:
- Chain-of-custody records
- Calibration logs for equipment
- Raw data files (.fsa/.hid)
- Validation studies and quality control manuals
- Non-disclosure may now be grounds for exclusion of evidence under Section 24 BNSS (voluntariness and fairness).
Section 313 Statements Must Be Individualized
-
Joint examination of co-accused under Section 313 CrPC is illegal.
-
Any conviction based on such a statement is liable to be set aside.
-
Practitioners must immediately raise this objection if observed during trial.
-
If forensic reports are central to the prosecution’s case, failure to summon analysts is a fatal flaw.
-
Courts must treat scientific evidence with the same procedural rigor as eyewitness testimony.
-
This ruling applies equally to DNA, toxicology, fingerprint, and ballistics reports.
