[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Guddu Baiga vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 December, 2025
Author: Vivek Agarwal
Bench: Vivek Agarwal
1 CRA-9484-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
CRA No. 9484 of 2024
(GUDDU BAIGA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH )
Dated : 03-12-2025
Shri Ram Prakash Yadav- Advocate for the appellant.
Shri Ajay Tamrakar- Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.
It is observed that in order dated 04.08.2025 I.A. No.26982/2024 has
wrongly mentioned whereas in fact it is I.A. No.22140/2025. This
typographical error is corrected.
During course of argument, on going through the record of the trial
Court we notice as under:
(i) That DNA report was sent by State Forensic Laboratory, Sagar vide
dispatch No.1386/2020 dated 08.09.2022 addressed to the Superintendent of
Police, Umariya (M.P.). It is revealed from the order-sheets of the learned
trial Court that vide order-sheet dated 14.10.2022 the DNA report was
awaited for which the case was fixed for 07.11.2022. Order-sheet dated
04.11.2022 reveals that the concerned SHO submitted DNA examination
report to the trial Court which was enclosed with the record and the learned
trial Court has directed to provide the copy of the same to the accused
(appellant herein).
(ii) When the case was taken up on 07.11.2022 it has been mentioned
that DNA report was submitted on 04.11.2022 and the matter was fixed for
general examination of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for
15.11.2022. On 15.11.2022, the learned trial Court has recorded the order-
2 CRA-9484-2024
sheet that during the course of preparation of questionnaire for accused
statement that the cross-examination of witness Dharmaniya Baiga (PW-4)
was deferred and thereafter witness could not be called for cross-
examination. Learned Public Prosecutor Shri B.K. Verma prayed for calling
witness Dharmaniya Baiga (PW-4) for cross-examination for which the
counsel for the defence/accused Shri R.K. Tripathi has consented and has no
objection then the learned trial Court has called witness Dharmaniya Baiga
by issuing a bailable warrant and case was fixed for prosecution evidence on
23.11.2022.
(iii) On 23.11.2022, the witness Dharmaniya Biga (PW-4) was
examined and after examination he was discharged and the case was again
fixed for general examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for
24.11.2022.
(iv) On 24.11.2022, general examination of accused was completed,
the accused did not want to give evidence in defence and the case was fixed
for final argument on 25.11.2022.
(v) On 25.11.2022, the final arguments were concluded and later on
the same day impugned judgment was pronounced.
It is noticed that when DNA report dated 08.09.2022 was submitted by
the prosecution on 04.11.2022, the same ought to have admitted in the
evidence being admissible without any formal proof of the same as provided
under Section 294 of Cr.P.C and it is also expected from the trial Court that
after admitting the DNA report in evidence the same should be exhibited by
the Presiding Judge being document admitted in evidence as per the
3 CRA-9484-2024
procedure laid down in Rule 458 of the Rules and Orders (Criminal). It is
also expected from the trial Court that since the analysis of DNA was found
positive against the accused it was obligatory on the Presiding Judge of the
trial Court that the appropriate questions be framed in the questionnaire
prepared for the examination of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and
same be asked to the accused while his examination for the purpose of
enabling him personally to explain the circumstances appearing against him
in the DNA report.
It is noticed that the learned Presiding Judge of the trial Court has
neither admitted the DNA report in evidence in the light of the provisions of
Section 294 of Cr.P.C. and exhibited the same nor put any question to the
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with respect to the DNA report which
is one of the important evidence adduced by the prosecution against the
accused. However, the learned trial Court has considered the fact of DNA
report in para 28 and 29 of the impugned judgment but prior to that it was
obligatory on the trial Court to follow the requisite procedure for taking
DNA report on record and admitted in evidence and also offer an opportunity
to the accused for explaining against the same by way of his examination
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
This is the serious lapse on the part of the learned Presiding Judge of
the trial Court who is dealing with the sensitive cases pertaining to POCSO
Act in which the evidence like DNA report is often adduced by the
prosecution and being considered by the trial Court. This procedural lacuna
may have its serious affects against the fair trial of the accused as also to
4 CRA-9484-2024
approach of just decision of a case.
We are of the view that this kind of serious lacunas and mistakes
committed by the Presiding Judge must be noticed by the High Court on its
administrative side too.
Therefore, before issuing any direction in this regard, with a view to
afford opportunity of hearing and follow principles of natural justice to the
learned Presiding Judge of the trial Court, we deem it proper to direct the
Registrar General to forward copy of the DNA report available on record of
the trial Court along with the order-sheets starting from 04.11.2022 to
25.11.2022 and also the copy of the judgment dated 25.11.2022 passed by
learned trial Court and call comments from the Presiding Judge of the trial
Court who has conducted the trial from the stage when DNA report was
submitted to the trial Court till pronouncement of judgment on 25.11.2022.
Let comments be called for within seven days.
List this case on 12.12.2025.
(VIVEK AGARWAL) (RAMKUMAR CHOUBEY)
JUDGE JUDGE
SS
