1) D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Recent judicial developments show that courts now accept DNA evidence as highly probative, but they insist much more strongly on chain of custody, proper sampling, laboratory integrity, and corroboration before acting on it. From a judge’s point of view, the shift is from treating DNA as merely “scientific and powerful” to asking whether the collection, preservation, documentation, and interpretation are legally reliable and fair.
A statement under Section 162 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot be used generally in trial; it can be used mainly to contradict a prosecution witness in the manner laid down by Section 145 of the Evidence Act, and Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. explains that even material omissions may amount to contradictions if properly put and proved.
The evidentiary
value of panchnamas in criminal trials has long been a contentious area of law.
But Justice M.W. Chandwani’s landmark judgment in Rahul S/o Kisan Jaybhayevs. State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-NAG:7427) has drawn a clear line in
the sand—and trial courts that ignore it do so at their peril.
Here’s the
bombshell: A demonstration panchnama is essentially police-manufactured
evidence that violates Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and is
categorically inadmissible. Yet, a crime scene panchnama remains robust
evidence capable of securing convictions, even for heinous crimes like murder.
The difference?
Everything hinges on what the panchnama records and when it was
recorded.
A similar situation also arose before the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ramkishore Bharatsinh Yadav Vs. State of Gujarat and another 2024 SCC OnLine Guj 3121 wherein, it has been observed as under:
“22. It is an admitted fact that at the time of making
confessional statement during the process of pointing out
and demonstration panchnamas, the appellant-accused was
admittedly in the police custody. Moreover, considering the
fact that nothing had been discovered or recovered through
these panchanamas, we are of the opinion that the trial
court, in considering these evidence for convicting the
appellants-accused, has fell in error, since the same is
inadmissible.” {Para 23}
24. To put it all together, a demonstration shown by an accused depicting the manner in which an offence is committed by him is hit by Section 25 of the Act and for the reasons stated above, it is not admissible even under Section 27 of the Act as an exception to Section 25 of the Act.
25. The learned Judge also observed that some part of the
demonstration made by the petitioners which relates to the
subsequent conduct of the petitioners is admissible in evidence
under Section 8 of the Act. No doubt, subsequent conduct of an
accused is relevant if it influences or is influenced by any fact in
issue or relevant fact. However, the learned Judge failed to
consider that the demonstration shown by the petitioners to the
police as to their conduct is admissible against them under Section 8 of the Act only to the extent of its non-confessional portion. Meaning thereby, any evidence showing the conduct of an accused must first overcome the bar created by Section 25 of the Act and only then it can be relied upon under Section 8 of the Act. (See: Bheru Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan 1994 (2) SCC 467 and Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar 1965 SCC OnLine SC 109. In the present case, the entire demonstration panchanama is hit by Section 25 of the Act. Therefore, demonstration made by the petitioners to show the manner in which the offence was committed by them is not admissible under Section 8 of the Act even to show subsequent conduct.
26. To conclude, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not considered these aspects and erroneously overruled the objection of the petitioners. Therefore, the orders dated 08.10.2024 and 14.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana in Sessions Trial No.24 of 2022 are hereby set aside. The objections of the petitioners are sustained. Accordingly, the petition succeeds.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.49 OF 2025
Rahul S/o Kisan Jaybhaye, Vs The State of Maharashtra
CORAM: M.W. CHANDWANI, J.
PRONOUNCED ON : 11.07.2025
Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:7427
Print PageThe next important flaw which can be seen is the failure of the prosecution to examine the CA. It is noticed that in the Vidarbha region, in the trials under the NDPS Act, the CA is not examined. In my view, this is a serious mistake on the part of the prosecution. It needs to be placed on record that in Greater Mumbai, in every case under the NDPS Act, the CA is examined. In Vidarbha region, while deciding the appeals against the conviction and sentence in NDPS cases, it is noticed that this aspect is taken for granted by the prosecution. It needs to be stated that in Vidarbha region, the majority of the cases under the NDPS Act are with regard to the seizure of the ganja. The examination of the CA, in the case of the analysis of ganja, is very important because, in the report of the CA the description of the substance in detail is recorded invariably. The description of the substance, seized as a ganja, is required to be proved to bring it within the ambit of the definition of ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. In this case, the prosecution has failed to examine the CA. In this case, the learned prosecutor did not produce remnant samples received from the office of CA. Similarly, the prosecutor did not produce the representative samples drawn at the time of the seizure on the spot as well as drawn in presence of the learned Magistrate at the time of the inventory. The remnant samples are required to be shown to the CA to bring on record the nature of the narcotic drug and the description of the drugs. Similarly, the representative samples are required to be opened before the Court at the time of the evidence of the concerned witness. The presiding officer is required to note down the description of the narcotic drug/substance found in the sample packets. It is further pertinent to mention that if the seized drug is not destroyed, then the same shall also be produced before the Court while recording the evidence of the witness. The description of the substance found in the packets/sacks shall also be recorded. The learned presiding officer is required to record this part of the evidence very meticulously and note down the description of substance.
{Para 18}
19. I am conscious of the fact that under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the reports of certain Government scientific experts may be used as evidence in an inquiry, trial or other proceedings. The record shows that no specific order was passed by the learned Judge, while admitting the CA report. It is to be noted that, in cases under the NDPS Act, as and when a CA report is tendered, the Court shall insist the prosecutor to examine the CA. If the CA is available, then the learned Judge shall not exhibit the report without examining the CA. The trial of the offences under the NDPS Act cannot be taken lightly.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 449 of 2023 and 457 of 2024
Decided On: 25.10.2024
Kailas Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.A. Sanap, J.
Citation: MANU/MH/7026/2024.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
Print Page
16. The CD is a part of the record. At the stage of the arguments in these appeals, the CD was played in the Court. It is evident that the video recording commenced with the apprehension of the appellant. The CD contains the recording of the inspection of hut, recovery of the substance, the description of the substance and further part of the proceedings. The CD further contains the recording of the raid and recovery at the house of Shatrughna. The learned Judge was required to play the CD at the time of recording evidence of each witness and record the contents appearing on the screen with the help of the concerned witness. If this procedure had been followed, then the contents of the CD would have become legally admissible evidence. This procedure had not been followed. This has caused prejudice to the appellants as well as to the prosecution. The important evidence collected in the form of the video recording has not been converted into legally admissible evidence. In order to verify the correct factual position, at the stage of the argument of the appeals, the video recording was played. It was very difficult to understand the contents of the CD. If the evidence of the witnesses had been recorded on playing the video recording at the time of the evidence, then the oral testimony of the witnesses on oath, as to the contents of the CD would have been part of the record.
17. It is evident that in this case the detailed description of the ganja has not been recorded in the panchanama. Similarly, the detailed description of the ganja has not been stated by the witnesses. The substance seized from the possession of the appellant can be seen from the video recording. It was necessary to show this part of the recording to the witnesses and record the description of the substance in detail through each and every witness. In my view, this is a fundamental flaw in this case. The appellants could not be held responsible for this mistake or rather a mess. It was the responsibility of the learned prosecutor to insist before the learned Judge to play the CD when the witnesses were in the witness box. It was not done by the learned Prosecutor/ incharge of the case. Similarly, the learned Judge did not follow this procedure scrupulously. It seems that the learned Judge did not act diligently while recording the evidence of the witnesses with regard to the incident or a part of the incident video-graphed by the investigating officer. Learned Judge has observed in his judgment that there was no objection as such on the part of the appellants to this CD. In my view, this observation is totally perverse. This observation is not only against the appellants, but it is also against the prosecution. In this case, the required evidence as to the contents of the video recording or CD has not been properly recorded. There is a procedural error.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 449 of 2023 and 457 of 2024
Decided On: 25.10.2024
Kailas Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.A. Sanap, J.
Citation: MANU/MH/7026/2024.
Print Page1) Leading Supreme court judgment laying down procedure for expeditious trial of Criminal cases.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) NO.(S) 1/2017
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Coram: S.A. BOBDE J, L. NAGESWARA RAO J, S. RAVINDRA BHAT J
Dated: April 20, 2021.
The principle of "Audi alteram partem," which means "hear the other side," is a fundamental aspect of natural justice and is crucial to the fairness and impartiality of legal proceedings, including criminal trials. In the context of Indian law, this rule is ingrained in various constitutional and statutory provisions that ensure a fair trial. Here's how it applies to criminal trials in India:
Right to be Heard:
While the question of territorial jurisdiction in civil cases, revolves mainly around (i) cause of action; or (ii) location of the subject matter of the suit or (iii) the residence of the Defendant etc., according as the case may be, the question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal Cases revolves around (i) place of commission of the offence or (ii) place where the consequence of an act, both of which constitute an offence, ensues or (iii) place where the Accused was found or (iv) place where the victim was found or (v) place where the property in respect of which the offence was committed, was found or (vi) place where the property forming the subject matter of an offence was required to be returned or accounted for, etc., according as the case may be.
19. While jurisdiction of a civil court is determined by (i) territorial and (ii) pecuniary limits, the jurisdiction of a criminal court is determined by (i) the offence and/or (ii) the offender. But the main difference between the question of jurisdiction raised in civil cases and the question of jurisdiction arising in criminal cases, is two-fold.
(i) The first is that the stage at which an objection as to jurisdiction, territorial or pecuniary, can be raised, is regulated in civil proceedings by Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure akin to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(ii) The second is that in civil proceedings, a plaint can be returned, Under Order VII, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, to be presented to the proper court, at any stage of the proceedings. But in criminal proceedings, a limited power is available to a Magistrate Under Section 201 of the Code, to return a complaint. The power is limited in the sense (a) that it is available before taking cognizance, as Section 201 uses the words "Magistrate who is not competent to take cognizance" and (b) that the power is limited only to complaints, as the word "complaint", as defined by Section 2(d), does not include a "police report".
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Transfer Petition (Crl.) Nos. 456, 666 and 681 of 2019 (Petitions Filed Under Order XXXIX for Transfer of F.I.R. No. 452 Dated 14.09.2018)
Decided On: 30.09.2020
Kaushik Chatterjee Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
Citation: MANU/SC/0729/2020.
Print PageWhat is held by the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Farhan Sheikh‟s case (supra) is condensed in para (89) of the judgment which reads thus:
“89. Thus, so far as the constitution of NIA is concerned, it a complete code. However, the same cannot be said about the substantive offences, and the procedural laws which would be applicable for the purpose of investigation and conduct of trial of such offences. To the extent that Section 16 of the NIA Act prescribes powers of Special Courts, the same would prevail. However, in respect of matters not dealt with under the Act relating procedures, and the substantive offences, it is the provisions of the Code and the substantive laws enumerated in the schedule to the Act, which would be relevant. Even if, the Act is considered to be complete Code in so far as it provides the right of appeal, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to hold that the prescription of limitation in Section 21(5) of the NIA Act is directory and not mandatory and that the High Court is empowered to entertain and consider application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The said application is maintainable”.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CrlA(D) No. 46/2022 ,CrlM No. 1474/2022
National Investigation Agency Through Its Chief Investigating Officer, Jammu Vs Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
Author: Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Pronounced on 13..12.2022.
Read full Judgment here: Click here
Print PageIn view of what we have discussed herein above we answer the question referred to us as under:-
"The Police can seek permission to remove an accused from judicial custody to police custody for completion of investigation in another case and for this purpose production warrant under Section 267 CrPC. can be issued. The expression "other proceeding" used in Section 267(1) and "for the purpose of any proceedings" occurring in Section 267(1)(a) would include "investigation" as defined under Section 2(h) CrPC.{Para 31}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
CrlA(D) No. 46/2022 ,CrlM No. 1474/2022
National Investigation Agency Through Its Chief Investigating Officer, Jammu Vs Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE
Author: Sanjeev Kumar, J.
Pronounced on 13..12.2022
Print Page5. The directions are enumerated below:
(i) The definition of “vulnerable witness” contained in Clause 3(a) of the ‘Guidelines for recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters’4 of the High Court of Delhi shall not be limited only to child witnesses who have attained the age of 18 years and should be expanded to include, inter alia, the following categories of vulnerable witnesses:
4 “VWDC Scheme” available at http://delhihighcourt.nic.in/writereaddata/upload/notification/notificationfile_lcwcd2x4.pdf.
(a) Age neutral victims of sexual assault read with Sections 273 and 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (“IPC”);
(b) Gender neutral victims of sexual assault read with Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012;
(c) Age and gender neutral victims of sexual assault under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 read with paragraph 34(1) of the decision in Sakshi (supra);
(d) Witnesses suffering from “mental illness” as defined under Section 2(s) of the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 read with Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872;
(e) Any witness deemed to have a threat perception under the Witness Protection Scheme 2018 of the Union Government as approved by this Court in Mahender Chawla v Union of India, (2019) 14 SCC 615;
(f) Any speech or hearing impaired individual or a person suffering from any other disability who is considered to be a vulnerable witness by the competent court; and
(g) Any other witness deemed to be vulnerable by the concerned court.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD; SURYA KANT, JJ.
Miscellaneous Application No 1852 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No 1101 of 2019
Smruti Tukaram Badade Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Author:Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
Dated: January 11, 2022
Print PageThis court is of the opinion that the courts in all criminal trials should, at the beginning of the trial, i.e. after summoning of the accused, and framing of charges, hold a preliminary case management hearing. This hearing may take place immediately after the framing of the charge. In this hearing, the court should consider the total number of witnesses, and classify them as eyewitness, material witness, formal witness (who would be asked to produce documents, etc) and experts. At that stage, the court should consider whether the parties are in a position to admit any document (including report of experts, or any document that may be produced by the accused, or relied on by her or him). If so, the exercise of admission/denial may be carried out under Section 294, Cr. PC, for which a specific date may be fixed. The schedule of recording of witnesses should then be fixed, by giving consecutive dates. Each date so fixed, should be scheduled for a specific number of witnesses. However, the concerned witnesses may be bound down to appear for 2-3 consecutive dates, in case their depositions are not concluded. Also, in case any witness does not appear, or cannot be examined, the court shall indicate a fixed date for such purpose. The recording of deposition of witnesses shall then be taken up, after the scheduling exercise is complete. This court has appropriately carried out necessary amendments to the Draft Rules. {Para 17}
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) NO.(S) 1/2017
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Print PageIt was pointed out by learned amici that the practice adopted predominantly in all trials is guided by the decision of this court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State of Gujarat (2001) 3 SCC 1 with respect to objections regarding questions to be put to witnesses. This court had termed the practice of deciding the objections, immediately as “archaic” and indicated what it felt was an appropriate course:
“It is an archaic practice that during the evidence collecting stage,
whenever any objection is raised regarding admissibility of any material in
evidence the court does not proceed further without passing order on such
objection. But the fall out of the above practice is this: Suppose the trial
court, in a case, upholds a particular objection and excludes the material
from being admitted in evidence and then proceeds with the trial and
disposes of the case finally. If the appellate or revisional court, when the
same question is re-canvassed, could take a different view on the
admissibility of that material in such cases the appellate court would be
deprived of the benefit of that evidence, because that was not put on record
by the trial court. In such a situation the higher court may have to send the
case back to the trial court for recording that evidence and then to dispose
of the case afresh. Why should the trial prolong like that unnecessarily on
account of practices created by ourselves. Such practices, when realised
through the course of long period to be hindrances which impede steady
and swift progress of trial proceedings, must be recast or re-moulded to
give way for better substitutes which would help acceleration of trial
proceedings.
When so recast, the practice which can be a better substitute is this:
Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding
the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial court can
make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively
as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence)
subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final
judgment. If the court finds at the final stage that the objection so raised is
sustainable the judge or magistrate can keep such evidence excluded from
consideration. In our view there is no illegality in adopting such a course.
(However, we make it clear that if the objection relates to deficiency of
stamp duty of a document the court has to decide the objection before
proceeding further. For all other objections the procedure suggested above
can be followed.) The above procedure, if followed, will have two
advantages. First is that the time in the trial court, during evidence taking
stage, would not be wasted on account of raising such objections and the court can continue to examine the witnesses. The witnesses need not wait for long hours, if not days. Second is that the superior court, when the same objection is re-canvassed and reconsidered in appeal or revision against the final judgment of the trial court, can determine the correctness of the view taken by the trial court regarding that objection, without bothering to remit the case to the trial court again for fresh disposal. We may also point out that this measure would not cause any prejudice to the parties to the litigation and would not add to their misery or expenses.”{Para 12}
13. It was argued by amici that the procedure, whereby the courts record answers to all questions, regardless of objections, leads to prolonged and lengthy cross examination, and more often than not, irrelevant facts having no bearing on the charge
or the role of the accused, are brought on record, which often result in great prejudice. It is pointed out that due to the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra), such
material not only enters the record, but even causes prejudice, which is greatly multiplied when the appellate court has to decide the issue. Frequently, given that trials are prolonged, the trial courts do not decide upon these objections at the final stage, as neither counsel addresses arguments. Therefore, it is submitted that the rule in Bipin Shantilal Panchal (supra) requires reconsideration.
15. Apart from Section 148, there are other provisions of the Evidence Act (Sections 149-154) which define the ground rules for cross examination. During questioning, no doubt, the counsel for the party seeking cross examination has considerable leeway; cross examination is not confined to matters in issue, but extends to all relevant facts. However, if the court is not empowered to rule, during the proceeding, whether a line of questioning is relevant, the danger lies in irrelevant, vague and speculative answers entering the record. Further, based on the answers to what (subsequently turn out to be
irrelevant, vague or otherwise impermissible questions) more questions might be asked and answered. If this process were to be repeated in case of most witnesses, the record would be cluttered with a jumble of irrelevant details, which at best can be distracting,
and at worst, prejudicial to the accused. Therefore, this court is of opinion that the view in Bipin Shantilal Panchal should not be considered as binding. The presiding officer therefore, should decide objections to questions, during the course of the proceeding, or failing it at the end of the deposition of the concerned witness. This will result in decluttering the record, and, what is more, also have a salutary effect of preventing
frivolous objections. In given cases, if the court is of the opinion that repeated objections have been taken, the remedy of costs, depending on the nature of obstruction, and the proclivity of the line of questioning, may be resorted to. Accordingly, the practice mandated in Bipin Shantilal Panchal shall stand modified in the above terms.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
SUO MOTO WRIT (CRL) NO.(S) 1/2017
IN RE: TO ISSUE CERTAIN GUIDELINES REGARDING INADEQUACIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN CRIMINAL TRIALS Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Print PageIn the present case, the respondent was acquitted of the charge of murder. The circumstances in which the trial led to an acquittal have been elucidated in detail above. The verdict of the criminal trial did not conclude the disciplinary enquiry. The disciplinary enquiry was not governed by proof beyond reasonable doubt or by the rules of evidence which governed the criminal trial. True, even on the more relaxed standard which governs a disciplinary enquiry, evidence of the involvement of the respondent in a conspiracy involving the death of Bhanwar Singh would be difficult to prove. But there are, as we have seen earlier, circumstances emerging from the record of the disciplinary proceedings which bring legitimacy to the contention of the State that to reinstate such an employee back in service will erode the credibility of and public confidence in the image of the police force.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No. 3340 of 2020
The State of Rajasthan Vs Heem Singh
Author: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J
Dated: October 29, 2020.
Print Page