Non-Examination of Expert Under Section 293 CrPC: Key Effects

In criminal trials, scientific evidence often plays a pivotal role, from forensic analysis to chemical examinations. But what happens when the expert who prepared such a report isn't called to testify? This is a common query in Indian criminal law: Expert under Section 293 CrPC not examined – what is the effect?

Many defense lawyers argue that skipping the expert's examination vitiates the evidence, while prosecutors rely on statutory provisions to uphold admissibility. This blog post delves into the nuances, drawing from Supreme Court rulings and statutory interpretations. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.

Understanding Section 293 CrPC: The Statutory Framework

Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, streamlines the use of scientific expert reports in trials. It covers reports from designated government experts, such as:- Chemical Examiners- Directors of Fingerprint Bureaus- Directors of Haffkeine Institute- Directors of State Forensic Science Laboratories, and others listed in sub-section (4) 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 86.

Key provisions include:- Sub-section (1): Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a government scientific expert... may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.- Sub-section (2): The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report. 2001 0 Supreme(HP) 112

The legislative intent is clear: to save time and avoid unnecessary summoning of busy government experts. As noted, The purpose of Sections 292 and 293 of the Code was to save the Government Scientific Experts from personal presence in the Court 2001 0 Supreme(HP) 112.

Admissibility of Reports Without Expert Examination

The cornerstone ruling is that non-examination of the expert does not automatically render the report inadmissible. Reports from designated experts are admissible per se if properly tendered into evidence, without objection from the accused 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 86 2024 0 Supreme(HP) 55.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this:- In a recent judgment, it was held that reports of government experts, properly tendered, are admissible even if the expert was not examined, provided the accused had the opportunity to cross-examine but did not do so 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 530.- The Court has discretion whether to summon and examine the expert; it is not obligatory 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 86.

If the prosecution marks the report as an exhibit without challenge, and the defense doesn't invoke sub-section (2) or (3) to summon the expert, the report holds evidentiary value 2008 2 Supreme 409 2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 1635.

Judicial Precedents: Supreme Court Clarifications

Landmark cases reinforce this position:- Santosh @ Bhure vs. State (G.N.C.T.) (2023): Confirmed admissibility sans examination when properly tendered and no objection raised 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 530.- Courts emphasize that Section 293's purpose is to streamline proceedings and avoid unnecessary examination of experts, provided the report is properly proved by its proper tender and compliance with procedural formalities 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 203.

Further, the report of a government scientific expert, issued under the hand of the designated officer, is admissible in evidence even if the expert is not examined 2024 0 Supreme(HP) 55. Recent judgments stress that admissibility is governed by statute, with examination as a discretionary safeguard 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 530

00300067294

From other precedents: Expert reports 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 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 530 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 188.

Rights of the Accused and Cross-Examination

While non-examination doesn't invalidate the report, the accused retains rights:- Under sub-section (3), the accused may request the court to summon the expert for cross-examination.- Failure to exercise this right typically waives challenges to the report's credibility 2008 2 Supreme 409.

Courts note: If the accused doesn't request examination, they can't later claim prejudice. However, the accused has the right to request the court to summon and examine the expert witness under Section 293(3). Failure to do so... can prejudice the accused’s case if rights are violated 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 369.

In one case, the trial court erred by estopping the accused from challenging the report merely because they didn't summon the expert, as Section 293 doesn't impose such a burden on the defense 2014 0 Supreme(Chh) 38.

Exceptions and Limitations: When Examination May Be Required

Not all reports qualify automatically:- Non-designated experts: Reports from those not listed in sub-section (4), like an Assistant Government Examiner, may not fall under Section 293. It is argued the Assistant Government Examiner is not included under sub-section (4) of Section 293

SUSHIL ARORA vs CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION - Delhi

Additionally, Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. are not obligatory for certain directors, but scope matters

SUJIT DEY ALIAS SUJIT KUMAR DEY vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND - Jharkhand

Practical Recommendations for Stakeholders

• Prosecution: Ensure reports are from designated experts, properly forwarded, signed, and tendered without defects.
• Defense: Object timely and request summoning if challenging credibility; otherwise, risk waiver.
• Courts: Exercise discretion judiciously, especially for non-standard reports. Recognize that non-examination does not necessarily lead to inadmissibility if the report is properly tendered and no objection is raised 2008 2 Supreme 409.

For non-293 reports, like handwriting experts not examined, lower courts must scrutinize admissibility 2013 0 Supreme(P&H) 139.

Conclusion and Key Takeaways

Generally, the effect of not examining an expert under Section 293 CrPC is minimal: the scientific report remains admissible if it meets statutory criteria and procedural formalities. This balances efficiency with fairness, as the Supreme Court has clarified in multiple rulings 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 530 2024 0 Supreme(HP) 55.

Key Takeaways:- Reports from listed experts are admissible per se without examination 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 86.- Court/accused discretion applies; non-use doesn't invalidate evidence.- Exceptions for non-covered experts or disputes require caution 2021 0 Supreme(Bom) 1158.- Accused must proactively seek cross-examination to avoid waiver.

Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence, as courts continue refining these principles. For tailored advice, reach out to a criminal law specialist.

References (select excerpts):1. Supreme Court on admissibility: 2007 0 Supreme(P&H) 86, 2024 0 Supreme(HP) 55, 2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 5302. Purpose and discretion: 2001 0 Supreme(HP) 112, 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 2033. Exceptions:

SUSHIL ARORA vs CENTRAL BUREAU INVESTIGATION - Delhi