Under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C., an FSL report is admissible in evidence, allowing the trial court to independently evaluate the cause of death by synthesizing the post-mortem note, FSL report, and medical depositions without necessarily recalling the expert witness.

ORAL ORDER

1. The present application under section 438 read with section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is filed by the applicant - original complainant, father of the deceased, challenging the common order dated 08.10.2024 passed below Exh.263 and 264 in Sessions Case No.77 of 2014 by the Sessions Judge, Morbi.

2. Learned advocate Mr. Kalrav R.Patel for the applicant submitted that the father had moved the Court praying for various reliefs by preferring the application. Advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the learned Judge has dealt with all the reliefs prayed, however, has not concluded with regard to the postmortem report, which refers to the cause of death, kept reserved till the chemical analysis report of the viscera is to be received.

2.1 Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem was examined as P.W.27 – Doctor Polabhai Narbherabhai Gami. Advocate Mr. Patel stated that according to the Doctor, the police had not come to him with the chemical analysis report of the viscera and therefore, he had not given the final cause of death certificate. Advocate Mr. Patel, thus stated that this evidence of the Doctor would make the case vulnerable, as there would not be a definite cause on record for the trial Court to read the cause of death of the deceased. Mr. Patel stated that the Court had not made any observation with regard to the FSL report given by Scientific Officer, FSL, Rajkot, and no reference has been made regarding the FSL in the impugned order, where the report very specifically clarifies that in the sample Mark A-1, 1 and 2, the analysis report observes the presence of Monocrotophos Nonathyo Phosphorus, which is a poisonous chemical, and the presence of poison was found in Mark 1 and 2, which was the viscera noted in the FSL report.

2.2 Learned advocate Mr. Patel submitted that the FSL report has been put in evidence at Exh.214 and thus, stated that the learned Judge was required to consider this submission and was required to recall P.W.27 – Doctor Polabhai Narbherabhai Gami for giving his opinion on the FSL report, Exh.214.

3. Countering the argument, learned APP has referred to the deposition of Doctor Abhay Kumar Yadav as well as Doctor Polabhai Narbherabhai Gami, to submit that Doctor Abhay Kumar Yadav has made a reference of viscera being sent and has also produced the original Yadi with regard to the P.M. note and the viscera, and in deposition at para-7 he has referred to two bottles, wherein the viscera was taken, and has also stated that the cause of death has been reserved till the receipt of the viscera report. Learned APP, thus, stated that it would not be necessary to recall the Doctor since the FSL report is at Exh.214 and the learned Judge during the course of the trial could read the same, as it becomes admissible under section 293 of the Cr.P.C, and, thus referring to sub-section (2) of section 293 of Cr.P.C., stated that if at all the Court deems fit to summon and examine any such expert as to the subject matter of his report, then the Court can summon such an expert.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik H.Sayani for the respondent No.5 stated that the evidence of Doctor Abhay Kumar Yadav at para-11 very categorically specified that they have not given any opinion regarding the cause of death, and Doctor has affirmed that he could not say whether the cause of death was accident or suicide. Advocate Mr. Sayani further stated that the application was moved by the defacto complainant himself and was not moved by the State and, thus, stated that it was only to delay the trial and t