The Madhya Pradesh High Court has invalidated a conviction under the POCSO Act and Section 366 IPC due to the trial court’s failure to examine the accused on a critical DNA report, reinforcing the foundational principle that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in criminal trials. This judgment underscores the mandatory nature of Section 313 CrPC and the consequences of ignoring statutory safeguards.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Ankit Yadav, was charged with kidnapping and unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor girl under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that the appellant abducted the victim, aged 13 years, and committed penetrative sexual assault. The case was tried as Special Case No. 39/2023 before the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Raisen.
Key Facts
- The victim was found in the appellant’s custody on 15.01.2023
- A medical examination of the victim was conducted on 16.01.2023
- A DNA sample was collected from the victim and the appellant on 17.01.2023
- The DNA report, dated 31.05.2024, was produced in court on 25.06.2024
- The report was not exhibited as a Court Exhibit
- The trial court did not put any questions to the appellant under Section 313 CrPC regarding the DNA report
- The trial court delivered judgment on 27.07.2024, convicting the appellant on both charges
- The order sheet dated 12.07.2024 confirms receipt of the DNA report and that a copy was given to the accused
Procedural History
- 15.01.2023: FIR registered under Sections 366 IPC and 6/4(2) POCSO Act
- 16.01.2023: Medical examination of victim conducted
- 17.01.2023: DNA samples collected from victim and accused
- 25.06.2024: DNA report produced in court
- 12.07.2024: Order sheet records receipt of DNA report and its delivery to accused
- 27.07.2024: Trial court delivers judgment convicting appellant under both charges
- 27.07.2024: Case closed on same day as judgment delivery
- 13.05.2026: Criminal Appeal No. 10635/2024 decided by Madhya Pradesh High Court
Relief Sought
The appellant sought setting aside of the conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial court’s failure to examine him under Section 313 CrPC regarding the DNA report vitiated the trial. He also sought release on bail pending retrial.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the trial court’s failure to put questions to the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC regarding a DNA report, which formed a critical part of the prosecution’s case and was available on record, constitutes a material irregularity warranting reversal of conviction.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Shri Ravindranath Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the DNA report, dated 31.05.2024 and produced on 25.06.2024, was a decisive piece of evidence linking the appellant to the offence. However, the trial court neither exhibited it as a Court Exhibit nor put any questions to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, depriving him of the opportunity to explain or rebut its contents. He relied on State of U.P. v. Krishna Kumar and Rajesh v. State of Haryana to argue that failure to examine the accused on material evidence renders the trial fundamentally flawed.
For the Respondent
The Public Prosecutor conceded that the DNA report was not formally exhibited but argued that its contents were orally disclosed during examination of witnesses and that the accused had knowledge of its existence. He contended that the conviction was based on corroborative evidence and that the omission was a procedural lapse, not a jurisdictional error.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the DNA report was not merely a piece of evidence but a pivotal link in the prosecution’s chain. It was produced in court, acknowledged in the order sheet, and formed the basis of the trial court’s reasoning in paragraph 35 of the judgment, where it was stated that "despite DNA report being not exhibited, it will not lose its credibility." This statement itself reveals that the court relied on the report’s contents without affording the accused his statutory right to respond.
"The right under Section 313 CrPC is not a formality; it is a substantive safeguard to ensure that the accused is not convicted on evidence he has not had an opportunity to explain."
The Court held that the trial court’s failure to exhibit the report and to question the accused under Section 313 CrPC was not a mere technical irregularity but a violation of the principles of natural justice and fair trial. The accused was denied the opportunity to challenge the scientific evidence that could have been exculpatory or mitigating. The Court emphasized that even if the report was not formally marked, its contents were relied upon, and therefore, the accused must be given a chance to respond.
The Court further noted that the judgment was delivered on the same day the case was closed, indicating no meaningful opportunity for the accused to prepare a defence in light of the DNA report. This haste, coupled with the omission, rendered the trial unfair.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 27.07.2024 were set aside. The matter was remanded to the trial court to conduct a fresh proceeding under Section 313 CrPC, including putting specific questions to the appellant regarding the DNA report and allowing him to adduce evidence in defence, if he so desires. The trial court was directed to pass a fresh judgment within three months. The appellant was released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties in the same amount, subject to his appearance before the trial court on 19.05.2026 and subsequent dates as fixed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must insist on strict compliance with Section 313 CrPC whenever scientific or documentary evidence is relied upon, even if not formally exhibited
- Failure to question the accused on such evidence is grounds for automatic reversal, regardless of the strength of other evidence
- Courts must record compliance with Section 313 in the order sheet or judgment to avoid appellate challenges
DNA Evidence Demands Rigorous Procedure
- DNA reports, even if not formally marked, must be treated as material evidence if referenced in judgment
- Defence counsel must immediately raise objections if accused is not questioned on such reports
- Prosecution must ensure timely production and exhibition of scientific evidence to avoid delays and reversals
Trial Courts Must Avoid Rushed Judgments
- Judgments delivered on the same day as case closure invite appellate scrutiny
- Courts must allow reasonable time between production of key evidence and final hearing
- Order sheets must reflect all procedural steps, including delivery of reports to accused
