Determining "No Legal Evidence" or "Manifestly Inconsistent Evidence": Test, Method, and Its Application by a Session Judge in Criminal Revision Against an Order of Issue of Process

 I. The Nature of the Test

The inquiry into whether there is "no legal evidence" or evidence "manifestly inconsistent" with the accusation is not an exercise in weighing credibility, reliability, or sufficiency of evidence. It is a threshold, objective screening of what is placed on the record — distinct from trial adjudication. The court asks only whether any evidence touching the offence exists at all, or whether the material on record is irreconcilably self-contradictory — never whether existing evidence is convincing or likely to result in conviction.

II. Governing Legal Standard 

Print Page

“From Well to Witness Box”: Two Medico‑Legal Concepts Every Sessions Judge Should Master

 In trials of homicide based on circumstantial evidence, the real battleground often lies not in direct testimony but in medical jurisprudence:

1. correctly classifying the nature of death, and

2. safely accepting identification of a decomposed body without “perfect” science like DNA.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Neelu Nilesh Koshti v. State of Madhya Pradesh is a useful illustration of both points for trial courts, and it is consistent with well‑accepted forensic principles set out in standard medico‑legal texts such as Modi and with classic rules such as Casper’s dictum.

I. Homicidal Death by Throttling: How the Body Speaks of Violence

Print Page

Can a Tractor Owner Be Convicted for Homicide When a Minor Drives and Causes Death? Criminal Acquittal, MV Act Liability, and the Widow’s Compensation Claim

 A tractor owner who permits a minor to drive is not automatically liable for conviction under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code merely because the accident resulted in death. The more direct statutory exposure ordinarily arises under Sections 180 and 199A of the Motor Vehicles Act, while a conviction under Section 304 IPC still requires proof of the necessary ingredients of that offence against the owner in a criminal trial.

Why this issue matters

In rural accident cases, especially those involving tractors, courts often face a difficult overlap of criminal law, juvenile liability, and motor accident compensation law. A recurring situation is this: the owner allows a minor to drive the tractor, the minor causes an accident, the owner himself or another person dies, the criminal case is prosecuted before the Sessions Court, and at the same time the widow or dependants pursue compensation before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

Print Page

Can a Sessions Judge Consider the Accused’s Defence While Deciding Revision Against an Order Under Section 156(3) CrPC?

 Revision Is Not a Mini-Trial:

An order under Section 156(3) CrPC often marks the beginning of criminal investigation, but the challenge that follows in revision frequently tempts the revisional court to travel beyond its proper limits. The central question is not whether the accused may be heard at all, but whether the Sessions Judge can evaluate the accused’s defence on merits while deciding a criminal revision against such an order.

The answer, in law, is nuanced but clear. The Sessions Judge may hear the accused where the revisional order is likely to prejudice him, and may examine the legality, propriety, regularity, and jurisdictional soundness of the Magistrate’s order. But the revisional court cannot convert the hearing into a factual adjudication of the defence or a premature evaluation of disputed material.

Print Page

From Barrel to Bench: How a Sessions Court Should Deal With Ballistic Reports in Firearm Trials?

1. Statutory backdrop: expert opinion and ballistics

In cases involving firearms, the court has to form an opinion on scientific matters such as type of weapon, working condition, range of fire, and whether a particular bullet or cartridge was fired from a particular weapon. These areas lie beyond common judicial experience and fall within “science” under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and its successor provision, Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

A ballistic expert is a person specially skilled, by study and experience, in firearms, ammunition, trajectories and related forensic examination, and his opinion is a relevant fact when such scientific questions arise in the trial. However, the evidence of an expert is advisory; it is to assist, not to bind, the court, and must be weighed with the entire evidence on record.

Print Page

How session judge should appreciate multiple dying declaration?

 You can explain it in interview as a simple filtering process: first see whether each dying declaration is trustworthy by itself, then compare them with each other, and finally check which one fits the medical and surrounding evidence. If they are consistent, they can be relied on; if they materially contradict each other, the court should look for corroboration and may prefer a trustworthy Magistrate-recorded declaration.

Print Page

What Precautions Should a Sessions Judge Take While Passing Sentence After Conviction? A Practical BNSS Guide to Avoid Illegality

 Sentencing is not a routine tailpiece to conviction. Once guilt is recorded, the Sessions Judge enters a distinct judicial stage in which fairness, statutory discipline, and recorded reasons become critical; many otherwise sustainable convictions are exposed to appellate criticism because the sentencing part is casual, mechanical, or incomplete.

Under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the safest approach is to treat the process from conviction onward as a structured legal sequence: record a precise finding of guilt, hear the accused on sentence, consider aggravating and mitigating factors, examine previous conviction only in the manner permitted by law, apply probation and compensation provisions where relevant, stay within statutory sentencing limits, grant set-off, and complete all consequential formalities.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether the Session Judge should permit calling of Chemical Analyser as witness when the case was fixed for judgment?

 It is, thus, clear that the provisions of Section 293 Cr.P.C. are applicable to the Chemical Analysers and Assistant Chemical Analysers /examiners. It is in this background and the legal provisions allowing the trial Court to use the report of Chemical Analyser as evidence in any enquiry, trial or other proceedings, that the prosecution was under obligation to explain the reasons for moving the Court for summoning the Chemical Analyser, that too at a very belated stage when the case was closed for judgment. As such, in my considered opinion, the order of the trial Court directing issuance of summons to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory needs to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 127 /2012

Mukesh s/o Ramshankar Shivhare  Vs The State of Maharashtra

CORAM: M.L.TAHALIYANI,J.

DATED : 26th September, 2012

Print Page

Whether Sessions Judge Should Permit Prosecution to Call Chemical Analyser After Closure of Evidence? A Practical Guide on Sections 293, 311 and 313 CrPC

 In criminal trials, few issues create more avoidable confusion than the handling of Chemical Analyser reports. Trial courts often confront a familiar sequence: the prosecution tenders a Chemical Analyser report under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the report is exhibited subject to objection, the prosecution closes its evidence, and thereafter seeks to call the Chemical Analyser under Section 311 CrPC. The real question is not merely whether the report is admissible, but whether a belated prosecution request to examine the expert should be allowed after closure, particularly when the case has reached the Section 313 stage.

Section 293 CrPC: what it does, and what it does not

Section 293 CrPC permits reports of specified Government scientific experts, including Chemical Examiners, to be used as evidence in inquiry, trial, or other proceeding. The statutory object is procedural convenience: it dispenses with the routine necessity of calling the expert in every case merely to prove the contents of an official scientific report.

Print Page

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

The Jailbreak File: A Sessions Judge’s Guide to Panchanamas, Section 27 Recoveries, and CCTV Proof (IPC 224–225)

 The record is familiar: a prison, a sudden burst of violence, a weapon that appears “from nowhere”, and a case diary full of panchanamas. The danger for a trial judge is also familiar—either to treat the paperwork as conclusive, or to reject the entire prosecution story because the panch witnesses are “official”. The correct judicial method lies in disciplined separation: (i) admissibility vs. weight, (ii) narrative vs. discovery, and (iii) primary proof vs. corroboration. Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether a Session Judge can reject a bail application of an accused on the ground that the accused himself had lodged a report with the police and admitted his guilt in the presence of two independent persons?

 The application filed on behalf of the present applicant, came to be rejected by the learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge by a cryptic order. The learned 4th Addl. Sessions Judge in para No. 3 of the order observed that "No doubt it seems from the Post Mortem Report that the doctor has reserved opinion regarding the cause of death. However, admittedly the applicant himself had lodged report of incident with police, in presence of the two independent persons and admitted the guilt." It seems that the alleged admission of guilt by the applicant weighed with the learned Addl. Sessions Judge while rejecting the application for bail. I am afraid that the admission on the part of the applicant regarding commission of the offence can be a ground to reject the application, especially in the absence of any other incriminating evidence regarding culpability of the applicant in the alleged offence. {Para 4} 

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application No. 3355 of 2003

Decided On: 12.12.2003

Mohammad Asgar Vs. State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.B. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1593/2003, 2004 ALLMR (CRI) 646.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances, filing of chargesheet amounts to change of circumstances for the purpose of deciding bail application?

The powers conferred upon the Sessions Judge or the High Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. are wide enough to grant bail. There is no hard and fast rule and no inflexible principle governing the exercise of the discretion conferred by Section 439 and that the only principle which was established was that the discretion should be exercised judiciously. The dominant criteria is whether there is any change of circumstance and the change should be substantial and not merely cosmetic. Under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., an accused gets documents relied upon by the prosecution as of right. He is thus better equipped to address the Court and invite the Court to examine the evidence after filing of the chargesheet from his point of view and to point out lacunas, if any, in the investigation, which could be fatal to the prosecution or sufficient enough to convince the Court that there exists reasonable grounds for, prima facie, believing that the applicant has not been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Until filing of the chargesheet one of the important fact that weigh on the mind of a Judge is the continuity of investigation and whether the investigation will be hampered if the accused is set at large. However, after filing of the chargesheet, this approach changes and the Court, apart from merits of the case, requires to consider whether the accused should be continued in custody even after the investigation is over. This change, in the approach of the Court after filing of the chargesheet towards evaluating the need of keeping the accused in custody, should be termed as substantial change. It is open for the Court to take similar view which was taken while rejecting earlier application for bail made before filing of the chargesheet. However, in my opinion, it is not open for the Court to hold that filing of the chargesheet is not a substantive change of circumstance and refuse to enter into merits of the case. The Court is obliged to consider merits of the case afresh by allowing the applicant or his advocate to argue an application for bail on the basis of documents supplied to the accused with the chargesheet as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. {Para 9}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Application No. 2816 of 2004

Decided On: 15.07.2004

Laxman Irappa Hatti and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

D.B. Bhosale, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/0422/2004,2004(4) MHLJ 415,

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether a prosecution witness in Session trial can produce documents not part of the charge-sheet filed before the Court?

A perusal of the provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the entire scheme contemplated therein demonstrates that there is no provision available for a witness to directly seek production of additional documents during the course of sessions trial and at the time of recording of his/her evidence. The Sessions Court in the present case failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter. While passing the impugned order, the Sessions Court also failed to appreciate that permitting such production of additional documents by the witnesses directly would prejudice the accused persons by depriving them of a fair opportunity to prepare their defence. The whole purpose of filing of charge-sheet, upon completion of investigation along with documents upon which the prosecution desires to place reliance, would be defeated if witnesses are permitted to directly produce additional documents in such a manner. {Para 21}

22. The additional documents could be produced by following the procedure of further investigation as contemplated under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and the Prosecutor taking a call as to whether such documents need to be produced in order to prove the charge against the accused.

23. In view of the above, it is found that the impugned order is unsustainable.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 688 of 2020

Decided On: 15.07.2021

Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation:  MANU/MH/1765/2021

Print Page

Madhya Pradesh HC: Whether Session court can permit witness to directly produce additional documents during sessions trial at time of recording evidence?

 It is also apparent from the aforesaid provision that it is for the prosecutor only to state by what evidence he/she proposes to prove the guilt of the accused. In such circumstances also, a witness cannot be allowed to bring any new document on record during his testimony. {Para 14}

15. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is only the prosecution, who can file an application to produce additional documents, which were gathered prior to or subsequent to the investigation, but such a practice, where a witness produces the document and the prosecution supports such application, cannot be allowed as the same would compromise the sanctity of the trial as envisages under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In such circumstances, while relying upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of R.S.Pai (supra), in case of Sarla Shrivastava (supra)by this court, as also the Bombay High Court in the case of Bhagyashree Prashant Wasankar (supra), the present application is hereby allowed as the application under Section 242 of Cr.P.C. was filed by the witness, which is not envisaged under law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (INDORE BENCH)

Misc. Criminal Case No. 46527 of 2023

Sunil Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Subodh Abhyankar, J.

 Decided On: 21.09.2024.

Citation: 2024:MPHC-IND:29173, MANU/MP/3679/2024.

Print Page

The Judicial Appraisal Imperative: When Prison Authorities Must Answer to the Courts for Punishing Parole Violators

 A Comprehensive Guide to Section 48A of the Prisons Act and Rule 23-A of the Remission Rules Under Maharashtra Law

Introduction

When a prisoner fails to return from parole or furlough on the stipulated date, prison authorities often move quickly to impose punishment—cutting remission, forfeiting privileges, or reducing grade. But do they have unfettered discretion? The answer, established through landmark judicial pronouncements, is an emphatic no.

The doctrine of Judicial Appraisal stands as the sentinel guarding prisoners’ rights against arbitrary administrative action. Under this regime, no punishment for breach of parole or furlough conditions can be imposed without the prior review and blessing of the Sessions Judge. This article dissects the legal position, procedural requirements, and judicial philosophy that animate Section 48A of the Prisons Act, 1894 and Rule 23-A of the Maharashtra Prisons (Remission System) Rules, 1962 (as amended in 2011), with particular emphasis on the seminal judgment in Vishal Baban Vanne v. The State of Maharashtra (Bombay High Court, 30 January 2019).

Print Page

Bombay HC: Order of Judicial Appraisal by Session Judge without application of mind is liable to be set aside

Learned Counsel for the petitioner also attracted our attention to all six judicial appraisals pertaining to remission cut to contend that without application of mind, those orders have been passed. Particularly, the petitioner relied on paragraphs 17 and 18 of the decision of this Court in case of Vishal Baban Vanne vs. the State of Maharashtra MANU/MH/0278/2019 : 2019 ALL Mr. (Cri) 2259 wherein this Court has emphasized the need of considering the reply filed by the convict and to pass judicial order depending upon satisfaction of the reason for late surrender. It is abundant clear that none of the judicial appraisal order bears a single worded reason meaning thereby there is total non- application of mind. Obviously, those orders run contrary to the dictum laid by this Court in above referred decision. {Para 4}

5. In view of above, we hereby quash and set aside all six remission cut orders. We direct to the Superintendent of Jail to forward all fresh proposals with convict's reply for judicial appraisal within two weeks from the date of this order. If the prisoner has not submitted reply in either of the case, he should be given an opportunity to give reply within four days from the intimation.

6. The learned Sessions Judge shall consider the reasons accorded by the petitioner for late surrender and in view of the above referred decision of this Court, shall pass the appropriate judicial appraisal order demonstrating the application of mind.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 94 of 2023

Decided On: 05.09.2023

Kailash Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vinay Joshi and Valmiki Sa Menezes, JJ.

Author: Vinay Joshi, J.

Citation:   MANU/MH/3541/2023.

Print Page

Bombay HC: Under which circumstances should a prisoner be given lenient punishment for overstaying the furlough leave?

It is no doubt true that the authorities have powers under the relevant Rules referred to hereinabove to deduct 5 days' remission for each day of overstay. However, such power needs to be judiciously exercised and not arbitrarily, taking into consideration the cause for not reporting within the stipulated period. The authorities are also required to see if the cause is legitimate and the prisoner is prevented from returning to the prison within the stipulated period, for such a legitimate cause and if he has made an application well in advance for extension of furlough leave, in such situation, the Jail Authorities are required to take into consideration all these factors and then expected to decide the issue. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner while he was released on furlough was required to undergo eye surgery and because of that the petitioner could not report back within the stipulated period. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner made an application/representation to the concerned authorities for extension of furlough leave on this ground, however, the same was rejected by the authorities. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the maximum punishment awarded by the authorities is not proper and we direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of above referred observations made by us. {Para 6} 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Criminal Writ Petition No. 475 of 2002

Decided On: 23.01.2003

Kashinath Laxman Ingley Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

D.D. Sinha and S.T. Kharche, JJ.

Author: D.D. Sinha, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/1624/2003.

Print Page

Bombay HC: What is the role of Judicial appraisal by the Session Judge in cases involving the punishment to prisoners by prison authorities?

 We, therefore, direct the respondents to punctually place before the District and Sessions Judge the case papers in matters of imposition of punishment for appraisal. In case the District and Sessions Judge finds any error of law in the order of punishment or notices any serious infirmity then the same shall be immediately brought to the notice of the concerned authorities so that the purpose of placing the relevant papers before the District and Sessions Judge is served. The respondents - prison authorities shall maintain appropriate record of the same. The matters in which punishments are imposed shall be dealt with diligently and the papers thereof shall be placed for appraisal and sanction without much loss of time. {Para 20}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY(AURANGABAD BENCH)

Sanjay S/O. Madhukar Kini Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Ors.

Criminal Writ Petition No. 637 of 2007

14th March, 2008

Coram: NARESH H. PATIL AND P.R. BORKAR, JJ.

Citation: 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 994.

Print Page