Chapter XXIII
Section 293 CrPC: Reports of certain Government scientific experts
New Law Update (2024)
Section 301 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Punishment
Procedural – Investigation / Inquiry
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.
(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.
(4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:—
(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government;
(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;
(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
(e) the Director or Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;
(f) the Serologist to the Government;
(g) any other Government scientific Expert specified by notification by the Central Government for this purpose.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 293(1)
This sub-section allows reports from specified government scientific experts to be directly used as evidence in court proceedings without requiring their personal attendance, thereby streamlining the judicial process. It covers reports based on matters submitted for examination or analysis under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Section 293(2)
Notwithstanding the admissibility of the expert’s report, this sub-section grants the court discretion to summon and personally examine the scientific expert if it deems fit. This provision ensures that the court can seek clarifications or allow cross-examination on the report’s subject-matter, contributing to a fair trial.
Landmark Judgements
Mangat Ram v. State of Haryana (2008):
The Supreme Court clarified that a report under Section 293 CrPC is admissible as evidence without necessarily calling the expert. However, the court retains discretion under sub-section (2) to summon the expert for examination if a valid reason, beyond a mere desire to cross-examine, is presented by the defence.
State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shri Jai Lal (1999):
The Supreme Court held that while an expert’s report is admissible, it may be necessary to examine the expert under Section 293(2) when the report’s contents are challenged or if it forms the sole basis for conviction, particularly if doubts exist regarding the methodology or findings, to ensure a fair trial.
U.P. State v. Mohd. Islam (2009):
This judgment reiterated that reports from specified government experts under Section 293 are admissible without formal proof. However, it affirmed the defence’s right to request the summoning of the expert for cross-examination, emphasizing that the court should judiciously consider such requests to ensure fairness.