DNA And Chemical Analyst Reports Cannot Be Read In Evidence Without Examining Scientific Experts: Bombay High Court

"The Whole Purpose Of The Trial Is To Ascertain The Truth — All Steps Must Be Taken Even If The Prosecution Is Remiss In Its Duty", In a significant ruling that underscores the non-negotiable right to fair trial in capital punishment cases, the Bombay High Court on March 10, 2026 set aside the conviction and death sentence awarded to a man accused of the brutal sexual assault and murder of a six-year-old girl, holding that the Sessions Court had committed a grave error by relying upon twelve Chemical Analyst reports — including DNA profiling reports — without ever summoning the scientific experts who authored them.

A Division Bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, in Confirmation Case No.3 of 2024 along with Criminal Appeal Nos.367 of 2024 and 1262 of 2024 in State of Maharashtra v. Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi, quashed the Sessions Court's judgment dated March 22, 2024 and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of examining the chemical analysers, while also ordering the release on bail of the accused's mother who had been convicted for the ancillary offence of concealing evidence.

Background of the Case

The accused No.1, Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi, was alleged to have brutally sexually assaulted a girl aged about six years and ten months living in his neighbourhood and caused her death by inflicting deep cut wounds on her throat. Accused No.2, his mother, was alleged to have assisted him in concealing the dead body of the victim. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence including the last-seen theory. The Sessions Court at Pune, after trial in Special Sessions Case No.176 of 2023, convicted accused No.1 under Sections 363, 302, 376(2), 376A, 376AB and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to death for offences under Sections 376A, 376AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Accused No.2 was convicted under Section 201 IPC and Section 21 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. The matter came before the High Court for statutory confirmation of the death sentence, along with criminal appeals filed by both accused.

Legal Issues

The core legal question was whether the trial stood vitiated when twelve Chemical Analyst reports — comprising serology reports and DNA profiling reports from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Pune — were directly marked as exhibit-166 collectively during the examination-in-chief of the investigating officer without ever being separately proved through their authors, without copies being furnished to the accused, and without any opportunity for cross-examination being granted to the defence, while the Sessions Court simultaneously relied heavily upon these very reports from paragraph 143 onwards of its judgment to hold the charges proved. A second legal issue concerned whether the Sessions Court's recording of the Section 313 CrPC statement by putting questions jointly to both accused persons was legally valid.

Court's Observations and Judgment

The Division Bench, speaking through Justice Manish Pitale, anchored its reasoning in the Supreme Court's authoritative ruling in Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 359), which had laid down that in capital punishment cases, "providing a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself is absolutely imperative and non-negotiable" and that "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 High Court found that the Sessions Court had, in paragraph 142 of its judgment, specifically observed that since the accused had not moved any requisition for examining the chemical analysers, the CA reports were being directly admitted in evidence without examining them. The Division Bench was categorical that this course of action was entirely impermissible. "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 held.

"From The Stage Of Investigation, The Duty Of All Persons In Authority Is To Ensure That Every Bit Of Material Is Brought On Record"

The Court went further and articulated an overarching principle of criminal justice that the duty to unearth truth does not stop with the parties to the proceeding. "There can be no doubt 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 have not shown awareness," the Bench declared. It added that from the stage of investigation itself, all persons in authority were duty-bound to ensure that every bit of material is brought on record to assist the Court in ascertaining truth, and "anything short of that would vitiate the entire process."

On the additional infirmity in the trial, the Court accepted the submission that the entire statement under Section 313 CrPC was vitiated because questions had been put and responses elicited jointly from both accused persons. This procedure was legally impermissible. Since the matter was being remanded, the Court directed that the entire Section 313 CrPC statement be recorded afresh, with separate individual statements being recorded for each of the two accused — a direction that would also encompass the further material that would come on record pursuant to the examination of the chemical analysers.

The Court also carefully defined the scope of remand, following the principle established by the Bombay High Court Division Bench in State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Baban Katkar (order dated July 23, 2025) which had clarified that when the Supreme Court in Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati remanded a capital case for examination of scientific experts, "the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not directed the trial Court to conduct the trial de novo by wiping out the evidence which is already recorded." Accordingly, the High Court made it explicit that the remand was only for the limited purpose of summoning and examining the chemical analysers and assistant chemical analysers with their complete laboratory documentation — including case acceptance forms, bench notes, worksheets, chain of custody records, electropherograms, electronic raw data, equipment logbooks, calibration records, validation studies, and quality control documentation — while the remaining evidence already on record would stand undisturbed.

On the question of bail for accused No.2, the Court noted that she had been convicted for bailable offences — Section 201 IPC and Section 21 POCSO Act — and had already served three years and seven months of her maximum seven-year sentence. Since the remanded proceedings would consume further time, continued custody would mean unjustified additional incarceration for offences that were themselves bailable in nature. The Court accordingly ordered her release on a PR Bond of Rs.25,000 with surety, subject to her appearing before the Sessions Court on every date, communicating her contact details and residential address immediately upon release, and cooperating for expeditious completion of the proceedings.

The Sessions Court was directed to complete the entire remanded process preferably within four months from April 7, 2026 — the date fixed for production of accused No.1 — and to proceed without being influenced by any observations made in the High Court's order.

The Bombay High Court set aside the Sessions Court's judgment dated March 22, 2024 in Special Sessions Case No.176 of 2023 and remanded the matter to the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune for the limited purpose of summoning and examining the chemical analysers and assistant chemical analysers connected with the twelve CA reports and DNA reports, supplying complete laboratory documentation to the accused, recording statements of both accused persons separately under Section 313 CrPC afresh, and re-hearing arguments before passing a fresh judgment as per law. The ruling is a firm reaffirmation that scientific evidence in a capital case cannot be used against an accused as a fait accompli — the authors of forensic reports must face the crucible of cross-examination.

Date of Decision: 10.03.2026