Bhopal: The conviction of a tribal man in the rape of a minor has prompted the Madhya Pradesh High Court to launch an investigation into two judicial officers, including a judge, for failing to fully consider the results of a DNA report during the trial. Some of the accused's blood samples, according to the study, did not match the evidence recovered from the crime scene.
A bench of justices Vivek Agrawal and Devnarayan Mishra ruled on September 21 that Special POCSO judge Vivek Singh Raghuwanshi and Assistant District Prosecution Officer B K Verma had failed in their official duties during the trial of a tribal man accused of raping a 14-year-old. The accused received a 20-year prison sentence, Indian Express reported.
The bench In its order said that an “inquiry be instituted against the conduct of ADPO B K Verma in not conducting the trial properly and not exhibiting the DNA report and also an enquiry be instituted against (judge) Vivek Singh Raghuwanshi for his negligence and dereliction of duty in not marking exhibit on that report and not recording statements of the accused in relation to that DNA report”.
“It was well within his rights to have marked as Court exhibit, and record statements of accused under Section 313 (examination of an accused) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to that DNA report,” the court said.
The court has requested that the trial court reevaluate the DNA evidence, allow the accused to cross-examine the witnesses, and issue a new ruling. Babu Lal Singh Gond, the accused, had petitioned the High Court through his lawyer Madan Singh, requesting a sentence suspension.
The HC noted that the prosecutor “for the reasons not known to us chose not to exhibit the DNA report which was already produced in the court” by the police.
“Even after taking that report on record and signing the note-sheet, (the) concerned judge was also complacent in not marking exhibit on the said report and putting questions to the accused while taking his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. For this reason, we are of the opinion that both the trial court and the ADPO are prima facie guilty of negligence and dereliction of duty,” the court said.