[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Raisingh S/O Bhagrath Thakursingh vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. Pso, Ps, ... on 27 January, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
1 appa 761-24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 761 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 252 OF 2024
( Raisingh s/o Bhagrath Thakursingh Mewad ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, through PSO, PS Kalmeshwar,
Nagpur )
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A.K. Bhangde alogn with Mr. M.S. Gulati, Mr. M.S. Deogade, Mr. N.K. Bhangde,
Counsel for the appellant,
Mr. S.A. Ashirgade, Addl.P.P. for the respondent/State.
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE & NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATED : 27th JANUARY, 2026
Heard. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.
The trial Court considered following circumstances:
A. Motive,
B. Last seen circumstance,
C. Abscondence of the accused after the incident,
D. Seizure of incriminating articles from the scene of the crime,
E. Discovery of the weapon of assault and clothes of the accused,
F. Medical evidence,
G. Forensic evidence,
H. Failure of the accused to explain incriminating circumstances
against him.
2. Out of the above, the trial Court found that evidence led to be
weak on proof of motive, last seen circumstance and abscondence of the
applicant after the incident. The applicant's involvement in the crime is
mainly based on the DNA report (Exhibit 37). The trial Court held that the
DNA profiling obtained from blood found on the nail clippings of the
deceased and the blood detected on the Jeans pant of the applicant were
2 appa 761-24
identical and from one and the same source of male origin and matched
with DNA profiling obtained from the scalp hair of the deceased.
3. The argument is that the expert who conducted the DNA
examination was not examined by the prosecution. DNA report was
marked exhibit in the evidence of the Investigating Officer. The applicant,
therefore, did not get opportunity to test the credibility of this evidence.
4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has invited our attention to
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karandeep
Sharma alias Razia alias Raju v. State of Uttarakhand, 2025 SCC OnLine
SC 773, wherein the Court, in context with the evidence of DNA, held thus
-
"39. The first flaw in the prosecution case on the aspect of DNA
profiling is that the expert who conducted the DNA examination was
not examined in evidence and the DNA report was merely exhibited
in evidence by the Investigating Officer (PW-14) who undeniably is
not connected with the report in any manner. This Court in the case
of Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs, while dealing
with the issue concerning evidentiary value of DNA report, has held
that DNA profiling reports cannot be admitted in evidence ipso facto
by virtue of Section 293 CrPC and it is necessary for the prosecution
to prove that the techniques of DNA profiling were reliably applied
by the expert. The relevant excerpts from the said judgment are
reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference: -
"36. The learned Amicus Curiae has also assailed the
forensic evidence i.e. the report regarding the DNA profiling dated
18-4-2012 (Ext. P-23/1), giving incriminating findings. She
vehemently submitted that apart from the fact that the collection
of the samples sent for examination itself was very doubtful, the
said forensic evidence was neither scientifically nor legally proved
and could not have been used as a circumstance against the
appellant-accused. The Court finds substance in the said
submissions made by the Amicus Curiae. The DNA evidence is in
the nature of opinion evidence as envisaged under Section 45 and
like any other opinion evidence, its probative value varies from
case to case.
3 appa 761-24
38. It is true that PW 23 Dr B.K. Mohapatra, Senior
Scientific Officer (Biology) of CFSL, New Delhi had stepped into
the witness box and his report regarding DNA profiling was
exhibited as Ext. PW 23/A, however mere exhibiting a document,
would not prove its contents. The record shows that all the
samples relating to the accused and relating to the deceased were
seized by the investigating officer on 14-2-2012 and 16-2-2012;
and they were sent to CFSL for examination on 27-2-2012. During
this period, they remained in the malkhana of the police station.
Under the circumstances, the possibility of tampering with the
samples collected also could not be ruled out. Neither the trial
court nor the High Court has examined the underlying basis of the
findings in the DNA reports nor have they examined the fact
whether the techniques were reliably applied by the expert. In the
absence of such evidence on record, all the reports with regard to
the DNA profiling become highly vulnerable, more particularly
when the collection and sealing of the samples sent for
examination were also not free from suspicion."
(emphasis supplied)
40. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, non-
examination of the scientific expert who carried out the DNA
profiling is fatal, and the DNA report cannot be admitted in evidence.
-------"
5. Thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the scientific
expert who carried out the DNA profiling was not examined, the DNA
report was inadmissible in evidence.
6. Similar is the case before us where the expert witness has been not
examined. The reliance placed by the trial Court on the DNA report to
find nexus of the applicant with the crime is, therefore, based on
inadmissible evidence.
7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the DNA
report could be read in evidence in terms of Section 293 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, argued that the finding of the trial
Court cannot be faulted with.
4 appa 761-24
8. We are not impressed with the argument of the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor inasmuch as marking of document as exhibit is one
thing and affording an opportunity to challenge the testimony is another,
particularly where the report under question pertains to DNA analysis.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has in unequivocal terms held that non
examination of expert in such cases is fatal.
9. That being so, the applicant has made out a case for suspension of
sentence. Hence, the following order.
10. The application is allowed. The substantive sentence imposed
upon the applicant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in
Sessions Case No. 308/2021 convicting the applicant under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code is hereby suspended pending final disposal of the
criminal appeal.
11. The applicant-Raisingh s/o Bhagrath Thakursingh Mewad shall be
released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
12. The applicant shall monitor progress of appeal and shall remain
present before the Court at the time of final hearing of the appeal.
The Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly.
Criminal Appeal No.252/2024.
List the appeal for final hearing in the week commencing from
23-02-2026.
(Nivedita P. Mehta, J.) (Anil L. Pansare, J.)
adgokar
Signed by: MR. P.M. ADGOKAR
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 28/01/2026 15:39:18
