Evidentiary Weight of DNA Reports When the Scientific Analyst is Not Examined Under Section 293 CrPC

In high-stakes criminal litigation—particularly cases involving rape, murder, or sexual offenses against minors—DNA evidence is often viewed as the gold standard for establishing a link between the accused and the crime. However, a recurring procedural conflict arises during the trial: is it mandatory for the prosecution to bring the DNA analyst or scientific expert into the witness box to testify?

When the prosecution relies on a written report without examining the expert, the fate of the case often rests on the interpretation of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This provision creates a tension between judicial efficiency and the accused's right to a fair trial. The central legal question is: what is the effect of the non-examination of a DNA analyst under Section 293 CrPC, and does this omission automatically weaken the prosecution's case?

Decoding Section 293 CrPC: The Statutory Shortcut

Section 293 CrPC is designed to streamline trials by allowing reports from specific government scientific experts to be admitted as evidence without requiring formal proof through the expert's oral testimony.

The mechanism works as follows:* Sub-section (1): Permits reports from government scientific experts to be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial, or proceeding 2022 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2621.* Sub-section (2): Provides a safeguard for the accused, allowing them to apply to the court to summon the expert for cross-examination if they wish to challenge the report's findings.* Sub-section (4): Lists the specific experts whose reports are admissible under this section.

A point of contention has been whether DNA experts—such as those from the Centre for DNA Fingerprinting and Diagnostics (CDFD)—are explicitly covered under sub-section (4). While some argue they are not explicitly listed, courts have generally held that their reports are admissible under sub-section (1) unless there are significant doubts regarding the sample's integrity 2005 0 Supreme(Ker) 204.

When Non-Examination Does Not Jeopardize the Case

In many instances, the failure to examine the DNA analyst does not lead to an acquittal. The courts typically uphold convictions despite the analyst's absence if the procedural chain of custody is airtight and the report is corroborated by other evidence.

A landmark example is the Nirbhaya Case (Mukesh & Anr. v. State), where the court accepted DNA profiling reports without the expert's testimony because the sampling process was flawless and there were no allegations of tampering 2017 3 Supreme 385. The court explicitly noted: If the sampling is proper and if there is no evidence as to tampering of samples, the DNA test report is to be accepted 2017 3 Supreme 385.

Similarly, in certain POCSO cases, convictions have been sustained without the analyst's examination when the chain of custody—from collection and sealing to forwarding—was proven intact and the defense failed to challenge the report during the trial

Vinod alias Rahul Chouhtha VS State of Madhya Pradesh

When Non-Examination Leads to Acquittal or Retrial

Conversely, the non-examination of a DNA analyst can be fatal to the prosecution if the DNA report is the pivotal or sole piece of evidence, or if there are credible doubts about the sample's handling.

The courts have intervened in several critical ways:

1. Failure to Discharge Initial Burden: In one rape and murder case, the prosecution relied heavily on DNA evidence but failed to examine the scientific officer. The court held that Examination of Scientific expert is very much necessary to prove documents 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 2326. Because the initial burden of proof was not discharged, the benefit of the doubt was given to the accused.
2. Lack of Corroboration: In a POCSO rape case where the victim turned hostile and no other corroborating evidence existed, the court set aside the conviction because the DNA expert was not examined to validate the report 2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 1988.
3. Violation of Fair Trial (Article 21): In a case involving the gang-rape and murder of a minor, the failure to examine DNA experts was viewed as a violation of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 272. This led the court to remand the case for a de novo trial to prevent a miscarriage of justice 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 272.

The Supreme Court has clarified that DNA evidence is essentially opinion evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 410. Consequently, if there are doubts regarding the drawing or preservation of samples, examining the expert under Section 293 becomes mandatory 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 410.

The Interplay with Privacy and Constitutional Rights

The rigor applied to Section 293 CrPC mirrors the broader judicial approach to bodily privacy and personal liberty. As established in the Aadhaar judgment, while the State can collect biological samples under Section 53A CrPC, such actions must be governed by a procedure that is fair, just and reasonable 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 772.

The right to privacy is now recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 772. This means that any procedural lapse in how DNA is collected or analyzed is not merely a technicality but a potential infringement on the dignity and liberty of the individual. If the informational privacy or bodily privacy of the accused is compromised through sloppy forensic protocols, the court is more likely to demand the examination of the analyst to ensure the evidence is untainted 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 772.

Strategic Implications for Legal Practitioners

To ensure that DNA evidence survives judicial scrutiny, the following best practices are typically observed:

• For the Prosecution: It is vital to establish an unbroken chain of custody. This includes meticulous records of seals, forwarding memos, and delivery receipts. If the DNA report is the cornerstone of the case, calling the analyst as a witness—even if not strictly required by Section 293(1)—removes the risk of an acquittal on technical grounds.
• For the Defense: The defense must not remain silent. To challenge a report, they should formally apply under Section 293(2) to summon the expert. Raising doubts early about sample preservation or the probative value of the report forces the court to consider whether the analyst's testimony is necessary for a fair trial 2025 0 Supreme(MP) 410.
• For the Court: Judges may use Section 311 CrPC to summon any expert whose testimony is essential to justice, or ensure that the incriminating DNA findings are specifically put to the accused during their statement under Section 313 CrPC 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 369.

Key Takeaways

The impact of non-examination of a DNA analyst under Section 293 CrPC is not uniform; it depends entirely on the factual matrix of the case. While the statute provides a shortcut for admissibility, it does not grant blanket immunity from cross-examination. Generally, if the chain of custody is intact and corroborative evidence exists, the report stands. However, where DNA is the sole evidence or procedural gaps exist, the failure to examine the expert may lead to an acquittal. This balance ensures that while the legal process remains efficient, the fundamental right to a fair trial is not sacrificed for convenience.

Disclaimer: This content provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not intended as specific legal advice.