M Prosecutrix v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
The Delhi HC set aside an order declining an application to re-test exhibits for semen detection. Directing the trial court to record expert evidence first, the High Court remanded the matter while refraining from commenting on merits.
What did the court decide?
Impugned order set aside; trial court directed to record FSL expert evidence first before deciding on re-testing application.
What the court decided
$~22
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 1665/2019 & Crl.M.A. 6685/2019 M PROSECUTRIX ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with SI Shallu
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R % 08.07.2019
Petitioner is the first informant / prosecutrix of FIR No. 171/2018, under Sections 376/506/323/120B/109/328 IPC, registered at police station Alipur, Delhi whose application for sending exhibits for reexamination/ re-testing by Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad is declined by trial court vide impugned order of 7th March, 2019. It is a matter of record that as per FSL report of 28th May, 2018 from FSL, Rohini, Delhi, semen could not be detected on various exhibits including the stall/ dupatta of prosecutrix.
Petitioner’s counsel informs that report from FSL, Delhi has not been proved by the concerned Expert. According to him, even after washing of the stall/ dupatta , semen can be detected and for this purpose, the exhibit of the stall/ dupatta needs to be sent to CFSL, Hyderabad for
Page | 1
re-testing. Petitioner’s counsel draws attention of this Court to some literature from Forensic Science International: Genetics.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a trial court should have deferred orders on an application for re-examination of exhibits pending the testimony of an FSL expert who must be put to the literature relied upon by the petitione
Whether the impugned order declining re-testing of exhibits without hearing expert testimony should be set aside.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
M
- respondent
State
Coram
Sunil Gaur
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court