Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pankaj vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5242
1 CRR-795-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI
ON THE 27th OF FEBRUARY, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 795 of 2025
PANKAJ S/O BABULAL RATHORE
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER
Appearance:
Petitioner by Shri Gajendra Singh Dodia - Advocate.
Respondent No.1 - State of Madhya Pradesh by Shri Romil Verma -
Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Advocate General.
ORDER
This revision petition under Section 438 read with Section 442 of
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhiya, 2023 read with Section 397 / 401 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter referred to as the Code) has
been preferred against order dated 10.02.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No.21
of 2023 by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District
Ujjain (MP), whereby an application filed on behalf of the petitioner -
accused to cross-examine expert witness - Scientific Officer / Assistant
Forensic Science Examiner of Madhya Pradesh State Regional Forensic
Science Laboratory, Sagar (Dr. Shivnath Maravi) on DNA Report Ex.P/31
has been dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an
accused in Sessions Trial No.21 of 2023 for commission of offence
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5242
2 CRR-795-2025
punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 (3) of Indian Penal Code, 1860
and also under Section 5 read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012. DNA test report dated 28.11.2024 Exhibit P/31
has been exhibited by Assistant Sub Inspector of Police Shantilal Bhandari
(PW-15) for cross-examination of Expert Witness namely Dr. Shivnath
Maravi. He (accused) has filed an application, but that has been dismissed,
without assigning proper reasons. The impugned order is bad in law,
therefore, he prays for allowing this revision petition and setting aside the
impugned order and affording him an opportunity to cross-examine the
aforesaid witness.
2.1 To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance on paragraphs No.29, 30 and 31 of judgment delivered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 359 ; for ready reference,
the aforesaid paragraphs are extracted, as under: -
"29. The instant case involves capital punishment and
thus, providing a fair opportunity to the accused to
defend himself is absolutely imperative and non-
negotiable. The trial in the case at hand was concluded
without providing appropriate opportunity of defending
to the accused and within and within a period of less
than two months from the date of registration of the
case, which is reflective of undue haste. The failure of
the trial Court to ensure the deposition of the scientific
experts while relying upon the DNA report, has
definitely led to the failure of justice thereby, vitiating
the trial.
30. In the wake of the above discussion, we allow the
application filed by the appellants. The case is
remanded to the trial Court who shall summon the
scientific experts associated with the preparation and
issuance of the DNA report with the entire supporting
material. These scientific experts shall be summoned
and examined as Court witnesses with a proper
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5242
3 CRR-795-2025
opportunity of examination to the prosecution and the
defence in that order. In case the accused are not
represented by a counsel of their choice, a defence
counsel having substantial experience in terms of the
guidelines laid down by this Court in Anokhilal (supra)
(extracted in Para 26 of this judgment) shall be
appointed to defend the accused and in the de novo
trial.
31. Pursuant to the testimony of the scientific experts
being recorded, the accused shall be again questioned
under Section 313 CrPC in context to the fresh
evidence. They shall be provided a fair opportunity of
leading defence evidence. Thereafter, the trial Court
shall proceed to re-hear the arguments and decide the
case afresh as per law. The entire process as directed
above, shall be completed within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of this order."
2.2 On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel for the petitioner prays
for setting aside of the impugned order by allowing the present criminal
revision.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -
State has opposed the prayer by supporting the impugned order and prays for
dismissal of the revision petition.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned
order.
5. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that an application filed
on behalf of the petitioner - accused for cross-examination of Expert
Witness, but no grounds have been stated as to why cross-examination of the
witness is necessary and how it will serve the ends of justice.
6. In the aforesaid factual matrix, without assigning any reasons for
cross-examination of the DNA Expert Witness in a routine manner, the
Expert, who has prepared DNA Report, cannot be called for cross-
examination.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:5242
4 CRR-795-2025
7. In the present case, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not been
afforded an opportunity to defend the accused, therefore, the judgment
delivered by the Apex Court in case of Irfan alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of
Madhya Pradesh (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner
- accused does not help the accused, as distinguishable on fact.
8. The present revision petition being devoid of substance, fails and is
hereby dismissed.
(BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
rcp
