S. 293 CrPC | Not Mandatory To Examine Scientific Expert To Prove Chemical Examination Report: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has held that it is not mandatory on the part of the prosecution to examine the Scientific Officer/Expert as a witness in order to prove the chemical examination report. In other words, a forensic report or chemical examination report does not lose probity merely on the ground of non-examination of its maker, which can otherwise be held as admissible evidence.While hearing an appeal preferred by six convicts against a double-murder conviction, the Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash observed –“…as per provisions contained in sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 293 of Cr.P.C., it is not obligatory that an expert, who furnishes opinion on the scientific issue of the chemical examination of substance should be of necessity made to depose in proceedings before the Court.”The case arose from a trivial issue involving demand of repayment of a meagre amount of Rs. 1000/- (rupees one thousand). To put briefly, the first deceased (D-1) had lent out the said money to the second accused (A-2). When D-1 asked for the repayment of the money, an altercation ensued between him and A-2.On the fateful day, i.e June 19, 1996, A-2 came to the house of D-1 and asked him to come to a village temple to receive the money. Accordingly, D-1 accompanied by D-2 (brother-in-law of D-1) proceeded towards the temple. However, before they could barely reach their destination, A-2 along with other accused persons allegedly attacked both the deceased brutally, giving fatal injuries by means of several deadly weapons.Upon conduct of trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, in the year 1998, found the nine accused persons guilty for the cold-blooded murder of both the deceased persons. While four of the accused were convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC, the rest five were convicted for commission of offence under Section 302/149 IPC. Being aggrieved, they preferred this appeal.The prosecution case was challenged on several grounds, one of them being non-examination of the forensic expert who prepared the chemical examination report/forensic report. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the expert must have been summoned to prove the contents of the report. However, the same was not done. Rather, the Investigating Officer (IO) marked the same as an exhibit.The State counsel did not support such contention since the report was admitted in evidence without objection from the defence at the stage of trial. Furthermore, no application was ever made by the defence seeking to summon the expert to testify in the Court.The Court, after giving thoughtful considerations to both the sides, relied upon Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2001) wherein it was held that the report of a serologist can be used as evidence without any formal proof under Section 293 of the CrPC. Similarly, reliance was placed upon State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram (2004) where the Apex Court clarified that under Section 293(1), CrPC any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government Scientific Expert, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under the CrPC, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding.Relying upon several other identical precedents, the Court came to the conclusion that it is not obligatory on the part of the prosecution to examine the Scientific Expert as a witness in order to prove the veracity of his report.“In the case in hand, the C.E. Report (Ext.12) has been marked on admission during the recording of evidence of I.O. (P.W.10). Such a document can also be marked on admission in view of section 293 of Cr.P.C. and used as evidence in the trial. In the case in hand, the defence has not even filed any application to summon the expert to prove the same nor objected to the marking of Ext.12 through I.O.,” the Court added.Considering all evidence on record, the Court confirmed the orders of conviction and sentence handed down to the six appellants. They were directed to surrender to serve out their life imprisonment.Case Title: Chandia @ Chandi Sethy & Ors. v. State of Odisha Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1998Date of Judgment: August 11, 2025Counsel for the Appellants: Ms. Adyashakti Priya, AdvocateCounsel for the State: Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty, Addl. Standing CounselCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 104Click Here To Read/Download Order

S. 293 CrPC | Not Mandatory To Examine Scientific Expert To Prove Chemical Examination Report: Orissa High Court

Jyoti Prakash Dutta

Tags