Expert Under Section 293 CrPC Not Examined - Effect
Presumption of Truth of Expert Reports Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. establishes that reports from government scientific experts are presumed to be true and admissible in evidence, even if the expert is not examined as a witness, unless the court finds it necessary to examine the expert for cross-examination. This presumption is rebuttable, and the court has discretion to summon and examine the expert if deemed necessary.References: Jagjit Singh @ Kala VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana, Santosh Meghwal VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, Sujit Dey @ Sujit Kumar Dey VS State of Jharkhand through A. C. B. - Jharkhand, Shokeen VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana]
Use of Expert Reports Without Examination The courts have held that expert reports can be admitted without examining the expert witness if the court does not find it necessary to do so, and if the accused does not request the examination. Such reports are admissible under Section 293(1) and (2), and do not require the expert to be personally cross-examined, provided the report is from a recognized government scientific expert.References: Santosh Meghwal VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, Shokeen VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana, Sujit Dey @ Sujit Kumar Dey VS State of Jharkhand through A. C. B. - Jharkhand]
Right of the Accused to Cross-Examine The accused has the right to request the court to summon and examine the expert witness under Section 293(3). Failure to do so, especially when the accused has sought to examine the expert, can prejudice the accused’s case. Courts have emphasized that the option to summon an expert remains with the court, and the absence of examination does not invalidate the report, but the accused can argue prejudice if their rights are violated.References: In Reference (Received from Special Judge, POCSO Act, Khandwa, District Khandwa (Madhya Pradesh) VS Anokhilal - Madhya Pradesh, Vishambahar Isiah VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh, Sujit Dey @ Sujit Kumar Dey VS State of Jharkhand through A. C. B. - Jharkhand]
Legal Precedents and Judicial Discretion Courts have clarified that the provisions of Section 293 are directory, giving courts discretion whether to examine experts. The law does not mandate examination in every case, but the court must consider whether cross-examination is necessary for a fair trial. The failure to examine an expert, when not requested by the accused, generally does not affect the admissibility of the report.References: In Reference VS Virendra Adiwasi - Madhya Pradesh, Vishambahar Isiah VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh
Limitations and Exceptions Reports from experts not specified under sub-section (4) (e.g., Assistant Directors not listed explicitly) are generally not admissible unless the court chooses to examine the expert. The admissibility depends on whether the report falls within the scope of Section 293 and whether the court exercises its discretion to examine the expert witness.References: SUSHIL ARORA vs CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION - Delhi, SUSHIL ARORA vs CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION - Delhi_Delhi_CRLREVP-117_2021
Analysis and Conclusion
The main effect of an expert not being examined under Section 293 CrPC is that the report is presumed to be true and admissible as evidence, provided the court does not find it necessary to examine the expert for cross-examination. The law favors the use of scientific reports to streamline proceedings, but also grants the accused the right to request examination of the expert. Failure to examine the expert does not automatically invalidate the report, but it can be challenged if the accused demonstrates prejudice or if the report falls outside the scope of Section 293.
In summary:- Expert reports are admissible without examination unless the court or accused requests otherwise.- The court has discretion to examine experts under Section 293(2) and (3).- Non-examination of an expert does not necessarily render the report inadmissible, but the accused’s right to cross-examine is protected.- Reports from experts not listed explicitly under sub-section (4) require the court’s discretion for admissibility.
References:- Jagjit Singh @ Kala VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana, Santosh Meghwal VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, In Reference (Received from Special Judge, POCSO Act, Khandwa, District Khandwa (Madhya Pradesh) VS Anokhilal - Madhya Pradesh, Vishambahar Isiah VS State of Himachal Pradesh - Himachal Pradesh, Sujit Dey @ Sujit Kumar Dey VS State of Jharkhand through A. C. B. - Jharkhand, Shokeen VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana, SUSHIL ARORA vs CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION - Delhi, SUSHIL ARORA vs CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION - Delhi_Delhi_CRLREVP-117_2021
