Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, Session Judge should not rely on CA report or DNA report without examining scientific experts?

 

The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling on the limits of judicial reliance on forensic reports in criminal trials. In State of Maharashtra v. Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi & Ors., the Court made it clear that where Chemical Analyser reports and DNA reports are relied upon as incriminating material, the trial court cannot treat them as self-proving documents and proceed to convict without examining the scientific experts concerned.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Failure To Examine Forensic Experts Whose CA reports / DNA reports Are Relied Upon Vitiates Trial

 We find from the record that, amongst other circumstances, the

Sessions Court, in the present case, did rely upon the CA reports at

exhibit-166 (collectively) to hold against the appellants i.e. the accused persons. This is evident from paragraph 143 onwards of the impugned judgement and order of the Sessions Court. We find that the Sessions Court committed a grave error while observing in paragraph 142 of the impugned judgement and order that since the accused did not move any requisition for examining the chemical analysers for any specific cause, the reports of the chemical analysers at exhibit-166 (collectively) were being directly admitted in evidence without examining the chemical analysers. Such a course of action was clearly not open for the Sessions Court, for the reason that the Supreme Court has laid down that such witnesses ought to be court witnesses even if the prosecution fails in its duty to summon such crucial witnesses, if at all the CA reports / DNA reports are to be relied by the prosecution. We are of the opinion that the impugned judgement and order to that extent is vitiated and the trial itself stood vitiated to that extent. {Para 20}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CONFIRMATION CASE NO.3 OF 2024

State of Maharashtra  Vs. Tejas @ Dada Mahipati Dalvi,

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

DATE : MARCH 10, 2026

Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:11660-DB

ORDER : (Per Justice Manish Pitale)

Print Page

New NA Permission Regime in Maharashtra: What the 2025 MLRC Amendment and 10 February 2026 GR Mean for Landowners?

 

Maharashtra has implemented a major reform in how agricultural land is converted to non‑agricultural (NA) use in areas covered by development or regional plans. The Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (Second Amendment) Act, 2025 (Mah. Act LVII of 2025), together with the Government Resolution (GR) dated 10 February 2026 issued by the Revenue and Forest Department, removes the old system of separate NA permission and annual NA tax, and replaces it with a simplified, single‑window, one‑time premium model.

This article explains the key changes in accessible language for landowners, developers, advocates and judges.

Earlier System: Dual Permissions and Dual Taxation

Print Page

Supreme Court: Surviving Partner In Mutual Suicide Pact Liable For Abetment

 SURVIVING PARTNER IN A MUTUAL SUICIDE PACT IS LEGALLY CULPABLE

117. Notwithstanding the culpability of the act of purchasing pesticide, the Accused’s participation in a suicide pact renders him culpable under Section 107 IPC. A suicide pact involves mutual encouragement and reciprocal commitment to die together. The survivor’s presence and participation acts as a direct catalyst for the deceased’s actions. It is pertinent to mention that abetting as defined under Section 107 IPC is not limited to physical act of supplying means to commit suicide. Accordingly, any psychological assurance or instigation, as long as the same is intentional and directly related to the commission of offence, also constitutes abetment.

118. This Court is of the view that it is the reciprocal commitment of each party to commit suicide which provides necessary impetus/support to the other to go through with the act. In a suicide pact, it is implicit that each participant knows the intent of the other to commit the act knowing that their withdrawal from the pact will likely deter the other. Each party’s resolve to commit the act is, therefore, reinforced and strengthened due to the participation of the other party. Suicide in a suicide pact is conditional upon mutual participation of the other. In other words, if not for the active participation of both the parties, the act would not occur. The law treats such conduct as abetment because the State has a fundamental interest in preserving life. Any assistance in ending life is treated as a crime against the State.

119. Consequently, this Court holds that the accused’s conduct in entering into and acting upon the suicide pact falls squarely within all the three situations envisaged in Section 107 of the IPC. His participation directly facilitated the deceased’s suicide. Notably, it is not his defence that the deceased was the dominant personality who pressured him into the pact. His culpability therefore stands established.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 457 OF 2012

GUDIPALLI SIDDHARTHA REDDY Vs  STATE C.B.I.

Author: MANMOHAN, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 160.

Print Page