With reference to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's recent reversal of a 2012 murder conviction, consider the following statements: 1. The convicted men had spent 14 years in jail before the conviction was set aside. 2. The Forensic Science Laboratory report relied upon at trial belonged to an entirely unrelated prosecution. 3. Section 313 of the CrPC requires the trial court to put incriminating evidence to the accused for their explanation. 4. The High Court found that the defence counsel, but not the prosecution, had identified the forensic mismatch during the original trial. How many of the above statements are correct?

Ethics · 10 Aug 2026

Madhya Pradesh wrongful conviction forensic report

With reference to the Madhya Pradesh High Court's recent reversal of a 2012 murder conviction, consider the following statements:

The convicted men had spent 14 years in jail before the conviction was set aside.
The Forensic Science Laboratory report relied upon at trial belonged to an entirely unrelated prosecution.
Section 313 of the CrPC requires the trial court to put incriminating evidence to the accused for their explanation.
The High Court found that the defence counsel, but not the prosecution, had identified the forensic mismatch during the original trial.

How many of the above statements are correct?

AOnly one

BOnly two

COnly three

DAll four

Tests precise attribution of who did or did not catch a critical procedural error, rather than just recalling that an error occurred.

Subscribe / Login in App →

This question is based on: Two Men, One Wrong Report, 14 Lost Years: What the MP High Court's Reversal Really Indicts

Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 10 Aug 2026

About this question

Why in news

The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside a 14-year-old murder conviction after finding the trial court had relied on a forensic report belonging to an unrelated case, with neither party ever raising the discrepancy during the original trial.

Why for UPSC

This format tests careful attention to who is credited with catching (or missing) a critical error, since UPSC frequently tests such attribution details that are easy to misremember or assume favourably.

Prelims summary

The MP High Court reversed a 2012 conviction after 14 years, finding an FSL report used at trial belonged to an unrelated case - a mismatch neither the prosecution nor the defence had noticed, exposing a systemic verification failure.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.