Refusing Forensic Tests in POCSO Probe Can Harm Justice, Says HC

Soumyadip Mullick | MP  | 4 Sept 2025 | Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has held that refusing to allow forensic tests in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and thereby risking contamination of critical material evidence, could “irreparably prejudice the interest of justice.”

Justice Jay Sengupta made the observation while setting aside an order of a Purulia trial court that had not only refused an investigating officer’s prayer to send seized items for forensic examination but also imposed costs on the officers concerned.

The High Court quashed the order in its entirety, terming the refusal “unjustified” and the costs “unwarranted.”

The trial court had earlier dismissed the plea as “vague and undefined” and directed the Inspector-in-Charge of the local police station to pay Rs 5,000 and the Sub-Inspector to pay Rs 1,000. However, the High Court found no ambiguity in the application and noted that seized articles in POCSO cases often play a “vital role” in the prosecution.

“Refusing to send such articles for forensic examination could not only have irreparably harmed and prejudiced the interest of justice but could also have caused degeneration and contamination of the materials,” the court observed.

The High Court further directed that the seized items be dispatched for forensic examination without delay and that the reports be collected at the earliest to aid the progress of the case.

Significantly, the bench emphasised that in cases of sexual offences against children, scientific examination of physical evidence is not a procedural formality but an indispensable step in ensuring that the truth emerges during trial.

By highlighting the risk of contamination, the order underscores the need for urgency in handling such sensitive material. The ruling also sends a clear message against penalising investigating officers for taking essential investigative steps.

The court stressed that saddling them with costs in such circumstances was not justified. Legal experts noted that the decision will guide trial courts to adopt a more facilitative approach towards scientific evidence in sexual offence cases, where timely preservation and examination of materials often determine the outcome.