Legal Provisions of Section 293 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), India.
Reports of certain Government scientific experts:
The object of inserting this new section is to ensure that the scientific experts mentioned in the section are not summoned for oral evidence at the instance of a party as a matter of routine. The Court has the discretion to summon such witness if it deems it expedient to do so in the interest of justice. The prosecution is not required to examine a scientific expert or a Chemical Examiner with regard to the safe custody of sample.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The admissibility of the Chemical Examiner’s report cannot be challenged on the ground that it does not contain the details of test or experiments upon which his opinion in the report is based.
Generally, the report submitted by Chemical Analyst or Examiner is accepted in evidence even without examining the expert. But where the reports of the Chemical Analyser and the serologist which are produced by the prosecution are conflicting as to their contents, mere production of such reports does not carry any evidentiary value and hence they cannot be used against the accused.
Image Source : luna.edu
The Supreme Court, in Himachal Pradesh, Adm. v. OM Prakash, has observed that the reason for treating the report of the Director of Finger Print Bureau as evidence without examining the persons giving the report is that the science of finger prints has reached a stage of development when the results derived there from cannot be doubted. But where there is any doubt about its exactness, it can always be ascertained by calling the person making the report to appear before the Court. The Apex Court has further clarified that the term “Director” appearing in sub-section 4 (c) also includes a “Joint Director”
ADVERTISEMENTS:
In Bhupender Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that in a murder case, the report of the Chemical Examiner coupled with the medical report of the doctor was sufficient to prove the death to have been caused by poisoning and there was no necessity for the personal examination of the Chemical Examiner as a witness.
Where no request has been made by the accused for summoning the Chemical Analyser nor has it been shown by him that the report is deficient and needs personal clarification from the Analyser, the trial Court can admit the report in evidence without calling and subjecting the Chemical Analyser to examination.
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Yelchuri Manohar v. State of A.P., pointed out that provisions of Section 293, Cr. P.C., provide that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of Government Scientific Expert, upon the matter, duly submitted to him for examination or analysis may be used as evidence in trial in the course of any proceedings under the Code. As per sub-section (4) (e), Section 293 applies to the Director of a State Forensic Laboratory. Therefore, there is no need to examine the expert unless the Court deems it necessary. However, it is only opinion evidence, which requires corroboration.