Bombay High Court: In a matter concerning whether the trial stood vitiated due to the failure of the Sessions Court to summon and examine the authors of chemical analyser’s reports (CA reports), despite having relied extensively on them while convicting the accused, the Division Bench of Manish Pitale* and Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ., quashed the conviction holding that a trial vitiates on failure to examine scientific experts whose reports are relied upon as it causes a failure of justice. The Court remanded the matter to the Sessions Court for the limited purpose of summoning the experts concerned, cross-examination, and fresh recording of statements under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
Background
A minor girl, aged about 6 years and 10 months, was brutally assaulted by Accused 1, causing aggravated penetrative sexual assault of extreme brutality and deep cut wounds on her throat, resulting in her death. It was also alleged that Accused 2 assisted in concealing the dead body. Following trial, the Sessions Court convicted Accused 1 under Sections 363, 302, 376(2), 376-A, 376-AB and 201, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 4 and 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), imposing death penalty for certain offences, while Accused 2 was sentenced to imprisonment for offences under Section 201 IPC and Section 21, POCSO Act.
The present application was filed seeking summoning of chemical analysers for cross-examination because the CA reports were directly exhibited during the examination-in-chief of the investigating officer, without summoning their authors. It was further contended that if the application was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Sessions Court, a direction ought to be issued for statement under Section 313 CrPC to be recorded in the context of the further evidence.
The accused’s counsel highlighted that the CA reports were heavily relied upon by the Sessions Court, and there was nothing on record to show that their copies were furnished to the accused, thereby depriving the accused of the right to cross-examine crucial witnesses. The accused persons also contended that their statements under Section 313 CrPC were vitiated since both were jointly questioned and only the fact of receipt of CA reports was put to them, without any of the report details. It was submitted that the trial stood vitiated and that the matter must be remanded to the Sessions Court for summoning the said Assistant Chemical Analysers.
It was also stated that Accused 2 was released on bail, and she had already undergone 3 years and 7 months of incarceration, despite her offences being bailable. The State accepted that the Assistant Chemical Analysers were not summoned, but this issue was not raised before the Sessions Court and that joint statements of both the accused were recorded under Section 313 CrPC.
Analysis and Decision
The Court relied on Irfan v. State of M.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 359, wherein the accused was sentenced to death based on CA reports, but the scientific experts, concerning such reports, were not summoned by the trial court. The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the trial court for examination of the scientific experts and to record the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC. It was observed that the case “involves capital punishment and thus, providing a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself is absolutely imperative and non-negotiable”. The Court also referred to State of Maharashtra v. Sanjay Baban Katkar, 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 2731, wherein it was held that the failure of the trial court in summoning the scientific experts had led to failure of justice, thereby vitiating the trial.
The Court opined that even when it is found fit to set aside the trial court’s judgment and to remand the matter back to it, the trial is not directed to be conducted de novo by wiping out the evidence that is already on record, instead, the matter is remanded only to the limited extent of examining such witnesses, concerning the CA reports with further ancillary directions. The Court noted that the Sessions Court committed a grave error in holding that since the accused did not seek examination of the chemical analysers, the reports could be directly admitted without examining them, and observed that the failure to summon these crucial witnesses led to failure of justice, thereby vitiating the trial to that extent.
The Court highlighted that the purpose of trial is to ascertain truth and all steps in the direction of unearthing the truth must 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. The Court emphasised that from the stage of investigation, it is the authority’s duty to ensure that every bit of material is brought on record which would assist the Court in ascertaining the truth of the matter, and anything short of that would vitiate the entire process.
The Court observed that Accused 1 had made out a case for remand and since the Sessions Court had questioned both the accused jointly, the entire statement under Section 313 CrPC must be recorded afresh. The Court further observed that Accused 2 had already undergone substantial incarceration for bailable offences and therefore released her on bail pending the completion of remand proceedings.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the Sessions Court’s judgment and remanded the matter for the limited purpose of summoning the scientific experts, cross-examination by the accused, supply of all relevant laboratory documentation, and fresh recording of statements under Section 313 CrPC. The Court also directed the Sessions Court to complete the remand proceedings expeditiously and preferably within four months from 7 April 2026.
[State of Maharashtra v. Tejas, Confirmation Case No. 3 of 2024, decided on 10-3-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Manish Pitale
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Shrikant V. Gavand, APP.
For the Respondent/Accused: Rebecca Gonsalvez with Sahana Manjesh, Advocates.
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
