Madhya Pradesh High Court
Balwant @ Shyam Chouhan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
Cr.Appeal No.1863 of 2022
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
Cr.Appeal No.1863/2022
Balwant @ Shyam Chouhan
Age 25 Years
R/o Maharanapratap Chowk, Khetiya
Police Station Khetiya, Distt. Barwani
Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Gaurav Chouhan, learned Dy.Govt. Advocate, for the
respondent/State.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on: 24.02.2022
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 15.03.2022)
Satyendra Kumar Singh, J.,
This criminal appeal under Section 14(A)1 of Scheduled
Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the order dated
07.02.2022 passed by Court of Special Judge (Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012) & 3 rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Barwani in SC ATR No.41/2019, whereby
application dated 10.1.2022 filed by the appellant for grant of
permission to call Dr. Praveesh Bhati as defence witness has been
rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case are that in the aforesaid criminal case
appellant is facing prosecution under Section 363A, 376(2)(N),
212, 368, 506 of IPC and under Section 3/4, 5L/6 of the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and also under
Section 3(ii)(v) of Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case of the prosecution is that on
4.10.2019 appellant knowing the fact that prosecutrix is minor
aged about 13 years and a member of SC, ST community on the
Cr.Appeal No.1863 of 2022
false pretext of marriage kidnapped and took her in a lodge
namely; New Mahi Lodge, Pansemal and committed rape upon her
repeatedly. Prosecution in its support filed DNA report given by
Dr. Praveesh Bhati, wherein it is stated that during DNA
examination male (Y) STR DNA profile found on the seized cloths
of the prosecutrix and inner surface of the condom were similar to
that of the appellant, while female autosomal STR DNA profile
found on the upper surface of the condom were similar to that of
the prosecutrix. After recording of prosecution witnesses appellant
moved an application dated 10.1.2022 for permission to call
Dr.Praveesh Bhati as defence witness, which was dismissed by the
impugned order stating therein that no specific reason has been
assigned by him in the report.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per Section
293 of Cr.P.C.the aforesaid DNA report is not required to be
proved by bringing the author of the said report Dr.Praveesh Bhati
in the witness box. However, in a case of such nature, where cross-
examination of expert witness is necessary to putforth proper
defence of the appellant. The Court below should have summoned
the witness. To meet the ends of justice it is necessary to summon
the aforesaid witness and appellant should be given an opportunity
to examine him with regard to genuineness of the said DNA report
given by him. Learned trial Court has committed error in
dismissing the application filed by the appellant. In view of the
aforesaid submissions this appeal be allowed.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has
opposed the prayer and contended that the Court below has rightly
rejected the application. The aforesaid application does not contain
justifiable reasons on the strength of which expert report should
have been requisitioned.
5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and
perused the record.
6. As held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh
Kumar Vs. State of NCT Delhi, (2008) 4 SCC 493; in view of
Section 293 of Cr.P.C.it is not obligatory that an expert, who
Cr.Appeal No.1863 of 2022
furnished his opinion on scientific issue should necessarily made
party to depose before the Court. In the instant case appellant in
his application dated 10.01.2022 filed before the learned trial
Court for permission to call Dr. Praveesh Bhati as defence witness
has not pleaded with accuracy and precision that why the expert
witness i.e. Dr.Praveesh Bhati must be summoned. Unless it has
been shown that the report is deficient and needs personal
elucidation, it would not be appropriate to call scientific expert
exempted in Section 293(4) of Cr.P.C. in evidence. The report
given by Dr. Praveesh Bhati is quite exhaustive stating therein the
procedure adopted by him during DNA examination is admissible
in evidence as per Provision of Section 293 of Cr.P.C.. Therefore,
in the said circumstance, learned trial Court has not committed any
error in dismissing the said application.
Consequently, this appeal sans merits and is hereby
dismissed.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge
Patil
Digitally signed by
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.03.16
10:55:17 +05'30'
