loader image

Bombay High Court: Accused Cannot Claim Site Inspection as a Matter of Right in POCSO Trial

Bombay High Court: Accused Cannot Claim Site Inspection as a Matter of Right in POCSO Trial

Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra, Decided on 13.10.2026

POCSO Trial Site Inspection Rights

The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, has dismissed a plea by a teacher accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl, refusing to interfere with the trial court’s decision rejecting his application for a local inspection of the alleged crime scene.

Justice Mehroz K. Pathan held that local inspection under Section 310 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a right of the accused or the prosecution and that it is for the trial court to decide whether an inspection is necessary to properly appreciate the evidence.

The petitioner had sought an inspection of the school’s science laboratory, where the alleged offences were stated to have occurred, contending that discrepancies in the spot panchnama and the size and location of the laboratory raised questions about whether the incident could have taken place as alleged. He argued that inspection was necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to defend himself.

Opposing the plea, the prosecution and the victim’s counsel submitted that seven witnesses had already been examined and substantial evidence had been recorded. They also argued that the application was filed belatedly, nearly three years after the chargesheet was filed, and that the spot might no longer be in the same condition as at the time of the alleged incident.

Also Read Supreme Court to Hear Waqf Amendment Act Challenges, 115 Intervention Applications on November 3

The Court observed that the accused had already cross-examined the victim and the spot witness on the dimensions and location of the laboratory. It held that the trial court could assess the alleged discrepancies in the spot panchnama and the witness testimony without conducting a site inspection.

The Court further observed that the application was filed on June 25, 2026, despite the charge having been framed on October 30, 2023, and found the submission that it may have been intended to prolong the trial to be probable.

Finding no material infirmity in the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and declined to interfere with the ongoing proceedings.

Appearances

For Petitioner: Mr. Aniruddha Jaltare, Advocate for Petitioner.

For Respondent/State: Mrs. S.V. Kolhe, A.P.P. for Respondent/State.

For Respondent 2: Ms. Sonali D. Choudhari, Advocate

PDF Icon

Sanjay v. State of Maharashtra

Preview PDF