MP High Court: “Justice Hurried Is Justice Buried”; Accused Can Seek DNA Expert’s Examination

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has underscored that expedition in criminal trials cannot come at the cost of fairness, holding that when an accused disputes a DNA report, the trial court must permit examination of the concerned forensic expert rather than reject such a plea on technical grounds.

Allowing a criminal revision filed by Avinash Pandey, Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh set aside orders of the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sirmour, District Rewa, which had declined the accused’s application under Sections 91 and 233 of the CrPC seeking to summon defence witnesses, including a forensic expert. The trial court had dismissed the plea while observing that the matter was among the “oldest 100 cases” and required expeditious disposal, and that under Section 293 CrPC, reports of government scientific experts are admissible without formal proof.

Appearing for the applicant, Advocate Arunodaya Singh argued that once the DNA report was specifically objected to, the accused had a right to seek examination of the expert. Government Advocate Pramod Choubey supported the impugned orders and sought dismissal of the revision.

The High court noted that Section 293 CrPC permits courts to rely on reports of certain government scientific experts; however, sub-section (2) expressly empowers the court to summon and examine such experts if it thinks fit. The court observed that the admissibility of a report does not eclipse the accused’s right to challenge its contents through cross-examination, especially when the findings form a crucial link in the prosecution’s case.

Justice Singh relied upon a Division Bench ruling in Criminal Reference No. 06/2022 (In Reference vs. Anokhilal), where objections to a DNA report had led to a remand for examination of the concerned experts. He also referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Rahul vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (NCT of Delhi), (2023) 1 SCC 83, which cautioned that “mere exhibiting a document, would not prove its contents,” and highlighted vulnerabilities in DNA evidence where procedural safeguards are not strictly adhered to.

Quoting extensively from the Apex Court’s observations, the High court reiterated that conviction cannot rest on suspicion or moral conviction alone and that courts must ensure that scientific evidence is scrutinised rigorously. The Supreme Court had further emphasised the proactive role of trial judges under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, stating that a judge is not to remain a “passive umpire” but must actively participate to elicit the truth.

The court remarked, “when accused do not object on the DNA report then DNA report can be accepted as provided under Section 293 of Cr.P.C. but when it is objected and accused wants to examine the expert witness of the prosecution as a defence witness then the application cannot be rejected on technical grounds.”

Against this backdrop, the High court rejected the trial court’s reasoning that the application was belated or that the case’s age justified denial of further opportunity. It clarified that general directions for expeditious disposal, particularly in POCSO matters, do not authorise hurried trials that curtail substantive rights. In a pointed observation, the court remarked that while “justice delayed is justice denied,” it must be read conjointly with the principle that “justice hurried is justice buried”.

Holding that the accused’s request to examine the forensic expert could not be brushed aside on technicalities, the court set aside the impugned orders dated August 28 and September 3, 2024. It directed the trial court to summon the expert witness and other witnesses as prayed for, record their statements in accordance with law, and thereafter proceed to decide the case on merits.

Case Title: Avinash Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: February 13, 2026

Bench: Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh