Dismissal of Application to Summon Forensic Experts Violates Fair Trial Rights under CrPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court - 2026-02-13

Justice Over Speed: MP High Court Reaffirms Accused's Right to Examine Expert Witnesses

In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur has intervened to protect the procedural rights of an accused, setting aside an order by a Special Judge (POCSO) that prevented the summoning of forensic experts. The order serves as a stern reminder that the judicial mandate for the swift disposal of cases cannot come at the expense of a fair and robust trial.

The Procedural Standoff

The case originated from a trial under the POCSO Act in Rewa. The appellant, Avinash Pandey, had filed applications under Sections 91 and 233 of the CrPC to call forensic experts to testify as defense witnesses. The trial court dismissed these requests, citing that the application was late and that forensic reports are admissible under Section 293 of the CrPC without formal proof. Furthermore, the trial court justified its decision by referencing administrative directives to dispose of the "oldest 100 cases" within a strict six-month timeframe.

Legal Arguments: Efficiency vs. Equity

Counsel for the appellant argued that relying on Section 293 to skip the examination of an expert is improper when the accused disputes the report. The court was requested to weigh the necessity of confronting scientific evidence against the procedural convenience of avoiding expert testimony.

Conversely, the state argued for the upholding of the trial court’s order, maintaining that the mandates for expedited disposal of POSCO cases and the statutory flexibility of Section 293 favored the trial court's decision to proceed directly to final arguments.

Judicial Analysis: When "Justice Hurried" Becomes "Justice Buried"

Justice Avanindra Kumar Singh, presiding over the case, clarified that while Section 293 of the CrPC allows the admission of expert reports without formal proof, it does not bar the court from summoning the expert if the defense expresses a need to examine them.

The High Court drew heavily upon the Supreme Court’s observations in Rahul vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , noting that the trial judge holds an active role in truth-seeking: > "A Judge is expected to actively participate in the trial, elicit necessary materials from witnesses in the appropriate context which he feels necessary for reaching the correct conclusion."

The High Court decisively rejected the notion that the "fast-track" nature of POCSO cases justifies bypassing essential defense rights. "Justice delayed is justice denied," the Court observed, "but it has to be read conjointly with justice hurried is justice buried."

Key Observations

The judgment provides a clear roadmap for trial courts facing similar dilemmas: * On the duty of the Court: "The Judge is not expected to be a passive umpire but is supposed to actively participate in the trial, and to question the witnesses to reach to a correct conclusion." * On Expert Reports: "When... the accused wants to examine the expert witness of the prosecution as a defence witness then the application cannot be rejected on technical grounds... because the case is old." * On Procedural Balancing: "The Hon'ble Supreme Court or Hon'ble High Court generally when directing the quick disposal of the cases never mean that trial has to be conducted in a hurried manner and not afford proper opportunity to any party."

The Verdict and Its Impact

The High Court set aside the trial court’s order and directed the judge to summon the expert witnesses, record their statements, and then proceed with the final adjudication of the case. By this mandate, the Court has reinforced that the right of the defense to challenge scientific and forensic evidence is an indelible component of a fair trial, which cannot be sacrificed for the sake of administrative timelines. This ruling will likely serve as a crucial precedent for defense counsel in complex criminal trials across the state.