POCSO-8 – Advocates Chamber

Not Appreciation DNA report is amount to guilty of negligence.

While hearing a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case where evidence on a DNA report was not taken, the Jabalpur bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court said that both the trial court and the Additional District Public Prosecutor (ADPO) are “prima facie” guilty of negligence and dereliction of duty.

The division bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Devnarayan Mishra in its order said, “Thus, we observed inaccuracies that ADPO who conducted the trial for the State, for the reasons not known to us chose to not to exhibit the D.N.A. report which was already produced in the Court on 14.11.2022, a fact which is noted by the concerned judge in the order sheet dated 14.11.2022. Even after taking that report on record and signing the note-sheet, concerned judge was also complacent in not marking exhibit on the said report and putting questions to the accused while taking his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. For this reason, we are of the opinion that both the trial Court and the ADPO are prima facie guilty of negligence and dereliction of duty“.

The high court thereafter directed for an “enquiry to be instituted against the conduct” of the concerned ADPO for not “conducting the trial properly and not exhibiting the DNA report”.

It further said that an “enquiry” be also instituted against the concerned special judge (POCSO Act) for his “negligence and dereliction of duty” in not marking exhibit on the DNA report and not recording statements of the accused in relation to that report, adding that it was “well within his rights” to have marked the report as Court exhibit, and record statements of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The high court thereafter remanded the matter back to the trial court for the limited purpose of taking evidence on DNA report, permitting the accused to cross-examine the witness, for taking additional statements of the accused in relation to DNA report, and for passing a “fresh judgment”.

The order was passed in an appeal against the special court’s November 30, 2022 order convicting and sentencing the accused, finding him guilty for offences under Sections 363, 366-A, and 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code along with Sections 5 & 6 of the POCSO Act for abducting and raping a minor.

Though the matter in the high court was to be listed for deciding the plea for suspension of sentence, the bench after perusing the record, took note of a DNA report which was produced by the State Forensic Science Laboratory in October 2022 in relation to the case. This report, the bench noted, was forwarded to the concerned Superintendent of Police, as well as to the concerned SHO and to the special judge (POCSO Act). The high court noted that the special court had acknowledged the receipt of this report from the SHO, and this fact was also found in the order sheet.

“Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 29.11.2022 and then after hearing arguments of the parties on 30.11.2022 judgment was delivered,” the high court noted.

The high court went on to quash the sessions court November 30, 2022 judgment and further directed the Director of Prosecution and the Registrar General to provide a report of the outcomes of these inquiries back.

“Let copy of the record be transmitted to the trial Court within seven day from today and the trial Court is requested to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the receipt of remand order,” it added.

Case Title: Babulal Singh Gond Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Case No: CRA-12461/2022

Not Appreciation DNA report is amount to guilty of negligence.

Related Posts

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply