India, March 11 -- Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Tuesday set aside a trial court's order sentencing a man to death for the rape and murder of a six-year-old girl in Pune, observing that crucial witnesses related to as many as 12 chemical analysis (CA) reports were not examined during the trial. A division bench of justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram Shirsat remanded the case back to a sessions court in Pune to examine the witnesses and to allow the accused to cross-examine them. The sessions court has been asked to pass a final judgment within four months from April 7. On March 22, 2024, the sessions court had convicted Tejas Dalvi, a tempo driver, for raping and murdering a minor, whom he had allegedly kidnapped from his neighbourhood in August 2022. While he was handed the death penalty, his mother, Sujata Dalvi, was sentenced to seven years in jail for helping him conceal the child's body in a pit behind their house. The Dalvis, however, filed an interim application in the high court, contending that crucial witnesses were left out during the trial, which was heard alongside the petition for the confirmation of Tejas's death sentence and Sujata's appeal. On March 10, the high court said the sessions court had committed a "grave error" by holding that since the accused had not sought the examination of chemical analysts from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory in Pune, their reports could be admitted in evidence without the experts being examined as witnesses. The bench noted that the Supreme Court of India has held that such crucial witnesses ought to be examined in court even if the prosecution fails in its duty to summon them, "if at all the CA reports/DNA reports are to be relied [on] by the prosecution". However, the judges clarified that the matter was being sent back to the sessions court only for the limited purpose of examining witnesses related to the CA and DNA reports. The rest of the evidence in the case would remain the same, they said. Arguing for Dalvi, advocate Rebecca Gonsalves told the court that the sessions court had specifically relied on CA reports, including serology and DNA profiling reports, while holding the accused guilty. She said that 12 such reports were made part of the evidence for the first time during the investigating officer's examination-in-chief before the sessions court. Gonsalves argued that there was nothing on record to show that copies of these reports had been supplied to the accused or their lawyer. Neither the prosecution nor the sessions court called the assistant chemical analysts-the authors of the reports-to be examined in court, she said. She urged the high court to set aside the conviction and direct the sessions court to consider the case afresh so that the accused get an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. On the other hand, the prosecution said that the accused had not made these arguments before the trial court, and had raised these points about witnesses related to the CA reports only in the high court. However, the prosecution conceded that in similar circumstances, the high court had remanded other cases back to the trial court for fresh consideration. It, however, said that if the court wanted to send the case back to the trial court, stringent conditions should be imposed on the accused, given the "brutal and ghastly nature of the offence". The judges said the purpose of a trial is to ascertain the truth and that "all steps in the direction of unearthing the truth ought to be taken by the court, even if the prosecution is remiss in its duty and the accused at the relevant point in time have not shown awareness." From the stage of investigation onwards, the high court said, it is the duty of every person in authority to bring every bit of material on record to assist the court. "Anything short of that would vitiate the entire process," the bench said. While Dalvi is currently lodged in Yerwada Central Prison, the court granted bail to Sujata Dalvi, noting that she had already served more than three-and-a-half years of her seven-year sentence. However, she has been directed to remain present before the sessions court on every date of the proceedings....