Point of Law: DNA report deserves to be accepted unless it is absolutely dented and for non-acceptance of the same, it is to be established that there had been no quality control or quality assurance. If the sampling is proper and if there is no evidence as to tampering of samples, the DNA test report is to be accepted.

JUDGMENT :

1. The questions that arise for consideration in this Appeal are,

(i) Whether the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act” for short) for rape of his stepdaughter, when mother of the victim had turn hostile and the conviction was passed on the basis of scientific evidence in the form of Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) Report ?;

(ii) Whether the learned trial Judge was justified in admitting the Report of Assistant Director of State Forensic Laboratory/Scientific Expert under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.” for short), in evidence though it was not admitted by the defence ?, and

(iii) Whether the trial Court was required to summon the Scientific Expert, before admitting his report in terms of provisions of Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. ?”

2. Before, adverting to the first question, I would prefer to answer the second and third question. Section 293 of Cr.P.C. provides that the report of the scientific expert may be used in evidence in any enquiry, trial or order and other proceedings of the Court. The provisions of the Section are intended to save time and avoid needless examination of experts mentioned therein, unless, the Court found it necessary to examine the expert or when the accused requested for examination of the expert. If the Court does not find it necessary to analyse the Chemical Examiner or any other expert mentioned in Sub-Section (4) of Section 293 and accused does not make any prayer to summon and examine the expert, the report can be used in evidence without examination of the expert.

3. In the case of Dasu and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1985 Cri.L.J. 1933, the Division Bench of this Court, while dealing with the similar issue has held in para-25 as under :

“25. The learned Counsel for the accused No. 3, Mr. Nair, submits that the learned trial Judge was not right in admitting the report of the Chemical Analyser in evidence, as he had taken objection to its validity and admissibility. According to him, the learned trial Judge before admitting on record the report of the Chemical Analyser and using it in this case should have summoned the concerned Chemical Analyser and should have examined him touching the report Ex. 27 made by him. We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel. Section 293 Cr. P.C. reads as follows:

293.(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, Deputy Director or Assistant Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;

(f) the Serologist to the Government.

It is true that when the report of the Chemical Analyser was sought to be admitted on record the learned Counsel for the accused No. 3, Mr. Nair, raised objection to its admission on record. Beyond putting an objection