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

Supreme Court: Disclosure Statements Made U/S 27 Evidence Act outside Police Custody Not Admissible

 Now we come to the recovery allegedly made Under Section 27, which is also fraught with inconsistencies as we would presently indicate. The memorandum Under Section 27 of the Evidence Act produced as Ex. P4 indicates the same having been drawn up on 13.10.2018 at 10.30 A.M. The only admissible portion in the said memorandum is: 'I will show you the place... where her bones and ashes are and the place where her skull and bones were..'(sic). The police were led by the Accused first to a field from where bones with ashes were recovered at 10.55 A.M evidenced by Property Seizure Memo Ex.P5. The canal was searched by three fishermen PW 3 to PW 5 who recovered the skull with 8 numbers of tooth of the upper jaw and a piece of bone wrapped in a green color saree, all of which showed evidence of burning as indicated in Ex.P3 Property Seizure Memo at 13.00 on 13.10.2018. Though the recoveries as per Exts. P3 & P5 Memos were made, in accordance with the confession statement of the Accused, Ext. P4 at 10.30 on 13.10.2018, the Arrest/Court Surrender Memo produced at Ex.P27, indicates the arrest of the Accused having been made on 13.10.2018 at 22.00 hrs. Section 27 of the Evidence Act clearly speaks of information received from a person Accused of any offence while in the custody of the police leading to a discovery of a fact being enabled of proof in the trial. The Accused at the time of the statement was not in the custody of the police and hence it is removed from the ambit of Section 27. {Para 10}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2026 

Decided On: 17.02.2026

Rohit Jangde Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.V. Sanjay Kumar and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Citation:  MANU/SC/0159/2026.

Print Page