Under which circumstances, Session Judge should not rely on CA report or DNA report without examining scientific experts?

The importance of the ruling lies not merely in the result, but in the principle it reinforces. A criminal court may receive a forensic report on record, but if it proposes to use that report as a serious link in the chain of guilt, the accused must have a fair opportunity to test the science through cross-examination of the expert who authored it. In short, the High Court has reminded trial courts that science may assist adjudication, but it cannot replace the discipline of proof.​

Facts giving rise to the controversy

The case arose from a prosecution involving the brutal sexual assault and murder of a minor girl. The Sessions Court convicted the accused and, while doing so, relied upon a batch of CA reports, including serological and DNA-related reports, which were collectively brought on record during the deposition of the investigating officer.​

The difficulty was that the makers of those reports were never examined before the court. The accused were thus denied the opportunity to cross-examine the Assistant Chemical Analysers and other scientific personnel whose reports were later used against them as incriminating material.​

Where the Sessions Court went wrong

The trial court appears to have proceeded on the footing that since the defence had not specifically sought the examination of the chemical analysers, the reports could be read in evidence and relied upon directly. The Bombay High Court found this approach to be plainly erroneous.​

The High Court held that such a course was not legally open once the prosecution and the court intended to place substantive reliance on those reports. If CA reports or DNA reports are to be used as incriminating circumstances, the scientific experts connected with them ought to be summoned, and this obligation does not disappear merely because the prosecution omitted to produce them or the defence failed to insist upon it at the appropriate stage.​

Section 293 CrPC does not end the inquiry

A key feature of the judgment is its implicit correction of a common misunderstanding surrounding Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. That provision undoubtedly permits reports of certain Government Scientific Experts to be read in evidence without formal proof, but that is not the same thing as saying that such reports become conclusive, unquestionable, or immune from adversarial testing.​

This distinction is crucial. Admissibility of a document and acceptance of its scientific conclusions are not identical matters. A forensic report may be formally receivable in evidence, yet its reliability, methodology, interpretation, and probative weight may still require scrutiny through the testimony of the expert who prepared it.​

Why forensic experts must be examined

A DNA report is not merely a clerical document. It reflects a chain of scientific processes involving collection of samples, preservation, sealing, transmission, laboratory handling, use of controls, extraction methods, interpretation of results, and ultimate conclusions drawn from technical data.

Each of these aspects may become the subject of a legitimate challenge. Unless the expert enters the witness box, the defence cannot meaningfully test whether the sample was compromised, whether the method was properly followed, whether contamination was ruled out, or whether the final conclusion is stronger on paper than in scientific reality.

That is why the Bombay High Court rightly refused to equate exhibition of the report with proof of its contents. A police officer may produce the report, but he cannot answer for the scientific reasoning behind it.

Supreme Court backdrop

The Bombay High Court rested its reasoning on the law already stated by the Supreme Court in Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh. In that case, the Supreme Court held that failure of the trial court to ensure the deposition of scientific experts while relying on the DNA report had led to failure of justice and had vitiated the trial.

The present judgment faithfully follows that principle. It therefore forms part of a developing judicial trend that insists that when scientific evidence becomes central to the prosecution case, procedural shortcuts cannot be allowed to compromise the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The judgment deserves approval, but with one qualification

The decision of the Bombay High Court deserves broad approval because it restores fairness to the treatment of forensic evidence in serious criminal cases. Trial courts must not become passive recipients of laboratory conclusions that are never opened to courtroom scrutiny.

At the same time, the ruling should not be overstated. It would be inaccurate to say that in every case, and in every circumstance, non-examination of the scientific expert automatically nullifies the trial. The better reading is that where the CA or DNA report forms a substantial incriminating link, and where the defence is denied an effective opportunity to challenge it, prejudice is inherent and the conviction may be rendered unsustainable.

Fresh Section 313 examination: an important corrective

The High Court also noticed a separate but equally serious flaw in the conduct of the trial. It found that the Section 313 statements had been recorded jointly and that the substance of the forensic material had not been properly put to the accused.

This part of the ruling is equally important. If a court proposes to rely upon a forensic report as an incriminating circumstance, the specific substance of that report must be fairly put to each accused separately so that each can furnish a meaningful explanation. Section 313 is not an empty formality; it is an essential stage of fair trial.

The remedy adopted by the Court

The Bombay High Court did not direct a wholesale de novo trial by erasing all the evidence already recorded. Instead, it adopted a more balanced course by setting aside the judgment and remanding the matter for the limited purpose of examining the relevant scientific witnesses, permitting cross-examination, securing supporting laboratory material, and thereafter recording fresh separate Section 313 statements and deciding the matter afresh.[

This was the correct remedy. It cured the identified illegality without unnecessarily undoing the rest of the trial record. The approach is both legally principled and procedurally practical.

Why the ruling matters beyond this case

This judgment has value well beyond the facts before the Court. In an era where forensic reports increasingly influence outcomes in rape, murder, POCSO, and other grave offences, trial courts may be tempted to rely on the aura of scientific certainty without insisting on the rigour of scientific proof.

The Bombay High Court has correctly reminded the system that forensic evidence is powerful precisely because it is capable of scrutiny. Once that scrutiny is denied, the strength of the evidence becomes the reason for insisting on greater fairness, not less.[

Takeaway box

• Section 293 CrPC permits admissibility of certain expert reports, but not blind reliance upon them.

• If CA or DNA reports are used as significant incriminating material, the scientific experts should ordinarily be examined.

• Failure to provide such opportunity may result in failure of justice and vitiate the conviction.

• A report proved through the investigating officer is not the same as tested scientific evidence.

• The proper remedy may be limited remand with fresh Section 313 examination rather than a full de novo trial.

Punch line

The real lesson of this judgment is simple but vital: in a criminal trial, the lab report may speak, but if it is to help convict, the law still requires that the scientist be heard.