Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Admissibility of Government Analyst's Report - The entire report of a Government Analyst is deemed admissible in evidence under section 406(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, regardless of whether the facts are within the analyst's personal knowledge or derived from submitted materials. Courts have consistently upheld that such reports can be used in their entirety in criminal proceedings ["SELVAN v. SENARATNE"], ["Shokeen VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"].
Evidence from Scientific and Forensic Reports - Reports from forensic laboratories, including scientific experts designated under Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code, are admissible per se when tendered, even if the expert is not examined as a witness. However, reports based solely on conclusions without supporting admissible evidence are not considered substantive evidence ["Shokeen VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Kameshwar Ray vs Deptt Of Posts - Central Administrative Tribunal"].
Hearsay and Opinion Evidence - Hearsay evidence, including medical or psychiatric reports, generally does not become admissible solely because it is authored by a physician or expert. Such reports are admissible only to show the basis of an expert's opinion, not as proof of the facts contained therein, unless the author is examined or the report is explicitly recognized as evidence ["HKSAR vs LI CHEUNG CHOI - Court of Final Appeal"], ["Sunder Lal Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another - Chhattisgarh"].
Inadmissibility of Certain Reports and Documents - Reports such as inquiry reports, post-mortem reports, or reports formed on opinions without proper examination or oath are often held inadmissible as substantive evidence. For example, in cases involving inquest or post-mortem reports, courts have ruled they are only useful for contradiction and not as primary evidence ["SMT. SHANTI BAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"], ["Abdul Sobhan Khan VS State of Assam - Gauhati"].
Limitations on Evidence During Suspension or Non-Production of Primary Evidence - Certain rules specify that allowances, T.A., D.A., or benefits cannot be presumed admissible during suspension unless explicitly stated. Similarly, secondary evidence is not admissible unless primary evidence is unavailable or non-produced, which must be satisfactorily proved ["Md. Naeem Ansari, son of Phool Mohammad vs State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand"].
Police and Inquiry Reports - The admissibility of police reports or inquiry reports depends on whether they are considered substantive evidence. Courts have emphasized that reports formed on opinions or conclusions without proper examination are not admissible as proof of facts, especially when the report is based on hearsay or unverified information ["SMT. SHANTI BAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"], ["SMT. SHANTI BAI vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Chhattisgarh"].
Expert Opinions and Court Directions - Courts have clarified that expert opinions, such as medical or forensic reports, must meet criteria for admissibility, including examination of the author or proper foundation. Reports that are merely opinions or conclusions without supporting evidence are often excluded from evidence ["Javed Khan @ Janu vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh - Madhya Pradesh"], ["GOH POH YOKE vs AMBANK (M) BERHAD & ANOR - High Court"].
Analysis and Conclusion:The overarching principle across the provided sources is that reports, including those by Government Analysts, forensic experts, or medical professionals, are not automatically admissible as evidence. They require proper foundation, examination of the author, or compliance with statutory rules to be considered substantive evidence. Hearsay reports or conclusions based solely on opinion without corroboration are generally deemed inadmissible, emphasizing the importance of procedural adherence for evidentiary validity. Therefore, the query report or similar documents are often found inadmissible unless they meet these criteria, supporting the assertion that such reports are not automatically admissible in court proceedings.
In legal proceedings, reports such as query reports, post-mortem reports, or medical examinations often play a pivotal role. But what happens when a party claims a query report is not admissible? This common contention arises frequently in Indian courts, raising questions about evidentiary standards, certification requirements, and procedural timelines. Understanding these nuances can make or break a case.
This article delves into the admissibility of such reports under Indian law, drawing from established precedents and statutory provisions. We'll cover essential criteria like Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the importance of timely objections, and exceptions for various report types. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Generally, a query report or similar document is admissible in Indian courts provided it meets statutory criteria, particularly for electronic or scientific reports. However, objections based solely on admissibility are typically waived if not raised timely—such as at the stage of tendering or marking the document as an exhibit. The report's probative value hinges on proper proof, including certification under Section 65B of the Evidence ActARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405. Without this, admissibility and evidentiary weight are substantially diminished or the report may be rendered inadmissible ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405.
Courts emphasize procedural compliance to ensure reliability. For instance, reports must be proved by their maker or supported by certification, as reaffirmed in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, which overruled earlier lenient views ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405SONU @ AMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA - 2017 5 Supreme 816.
Reports are not substantive evidence unless properly proved. The maker must testify, or for electronic/scientific reports, a Section 65B certificate is a condition precedent ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405. This applies to query reports involving scientific analysis, ensuring authenticity.
In related contexts, Government Analyst reports under CrPC provisions are admissible without calling the expert, subject to qualifications like cross-examination rights REX v. GUNAWARDENE et al.. The provisions of section 406 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code... are not confined to matters or things submitted to him for 'chemical'... In either case, the law makes his report admissible as evidence without his being called.
Objections to mode of proof, such as missing certification, must be voiced at tendering. Failure leads to waiver, rendering the report admissible but with limited value R. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder VS Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V. P. Temple - 2003 8 Supreme 193SONU @ AMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA - 2017 5 Supreme 816. Late objections on appeal are generally dismissed unless inherently inadmissible.
This principle echoes in property disputes, where unchallenged demarcation reports become per se admissible. The defendants chose not to file any objection against the said report, therefore, the report was per se admissible Harjit Singh VS Jarnail Singh - 2010 Supreme(P&H) 106.
Electronic records, including digitized query reports, demand a Section 65B(4) certificate. Absent it, they are inadmissible, as per Anvar P.V. v. P.K. BasheerARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405. This overrules Navjot SandhuSONU @ AMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA - 2017 5 Supreme 816.
For Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports, Section 293 CrPC allows admissibility without formal proof, but the accused retains challenge rights via cross-examination Santosh Kumar Mahto VS State of Jharkhand - 2022 Supreme(Jhk) 911. However, the said provision... deals with admissibility of report of a Government Scientific Expert... that is admissible in terms of the above section. It is also admissible without calling or examining the expert as a witness.
Exhibiting reports via non-experts undermines reliability. A clerk or unfamiliar person cannot authenticate medical or scientific reports; the author or expert must be examined Northern Plastics LTD. VS Hindustan Photo Film Manufacturing LTD. - 1997 2 Supreme 365M. V. Nair VS Union Of India - 1993 0 Supreme(SC) 71.
Handwriting expert reports under Section 293 CrPC are not per se admissible without cross-examination opportunity; leading evidence may cure this Sunil Kumar VS State of Punjab - 2013 Supreme(P&H) 139. Report which is not per re-admissible because of non opportunity of cross-examination, would become admissible by leading evidence.
Xerox copies of examination reports may be rejected if originals aren't produced, reinforcing best evidence rules Hi-Tech Arai Ltd. VS Commissioner of Customs, Chennai.
In summary, a query report is generally admissible if properly certified under Section 65B and objections are timely raised; otherwise, it risks exclusion or diminished value ARJUN PANDITRAO KHOTKAR VS KAILASH KUSHANRAO GORANTYAL - 2020 4 Supreme 405. Courts prioritize procedure to uphold justice, as seen across precedents on FSL, inquiry, and demarcation reports.
Key Takeaways:- Certify Electronically: Mandatory for digital reports.- Object Promptly: Avoid waiver.- Prove Properly: Use experts or authors.- Challenge Fairly: Cross-examine where rights exist.
Stay informed on evolving evidence laws to strengthen your case. For tailored advice, reach out to a legal expert.
The Analyst's report P8 has therefore been properly used in evidence. The question is whether all the facts stated in a report by the Government Analyst, whether they are matters within his own personal knowledge or not, are admissible in evidence. ... Our decision on the point referred to us is that the whole of the report of the Government Analyst is admissible in evidence. ... Ratnapura, 48,063 Evidence-Government Analyst's report-Admissibility-Criminal Pr....
In such a scenario, the net result would be that the FSL report, which was provided by a government scientific expert specified in Section 293 of the Code, was admissible regardless of the fact that the expert was not examined as a witness. ... Various Clauses of sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code illustratively state which of the reports are admissible in evidence by their mere tender and it may not be necessary or obligatory on the part of any of the authorities to summon the author of the #HL....
Inquiry Report and defence statement of imposing punishment of compulsory deduction from his retirement gratuity and n from the compensation pension as admissible ... It is clarified that we have not expressed any view ... Counsel for respondents submits that Revision lie which have not yet been exhausted maintainable at this stage To a specific query whether OA was tenable without ... Hence OA was not To a specific query whether OA was tenable without exhau....
The lower appellate authority also has not accepted a xerox copy of the examination report produced by the party. ... This Tribunal has consistently held that the benefit of an exemption Notification shall not be denied on the sole ground of the benefit not having been claimed at the time of clearance of the goods, if the benefit is otherwise admissible to the assessee. ... This was done in answer to specific query as to whether the goods were of Indian origin and in original packing. ....
The provisions of section 406 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which makes admissible in evidence the report of the Government Analyst upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis, are not confined to matters or things submitted to him for " chemical ... In either case, the law makes, his report admissible as evidence without his being called, subject to the qualifications I have already indicated. I, therefore, decided to admit the exhibit P17. ... His competency....
The Court however, found that query nos.(i),(ii),(iv),(vi),(viii) and (xiii) in Ext.A3 application could not be allowed. The petitioners took exception to that order and filed Ext.P5 Review Petition. ... To put the matter briefly, the general rule is that secondary evidence is not admissible until the non - production of primary evidence is satisfactorily proved” 13. ... it is run by the petitioners themselves or not.” ... Thus the first part of query no.(i) and query....
But the third category is not subject to any such legal disability. We have not come across any legal hurdle against accepting them as admissible evidence. ... He also submitted that the inquiry report under Section 176 is akin to a report filed under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and, therefore, the same is admissible in evidence. 11. ... If the reports are to the effect that the death is not a custodial death, it is respectfully submitted that the reports filed by the above....
But the third category is not subject to any such legal disability. We have not come across any legal hurdle against accepting them as admissible evidence. ... are admissible in evidence. ... He also submitted that the inquiry report under Section 176 is akin to a report filed under Section 174 of Cr.P.C and, therefore, the same is admissible in evidence. ... If the reports are to the effect that the death is not a custodial death, it is respectfully....
Therefore, query report (Ex.P/14) given by Dr. Ajay Rathia (PW7) does not provide any support to the prosecution case. ... Ajay Kumar Rathia (PW7), this knife was received by him to answer the query and his query report is Ex.P/14 in which he has failed to make any observation that the injuries to the complainant were inflicted by the same kind of knife, which was sent to him along with query letter. ... The X-ray or CT scan report has not#....
Hearsay evidence does not become admissible to prove facts because the person who proposes to give it is a physician. ... [24] and is admissible without infringing the hearsay rule. ... Hence, the concern of Lord Havers is not applicable to the statement of a defendant in a psychiatric report. 46. ... The question of hearsay in a psychiatrist report arose because Dr Wong, the psychiatrist called by the defendant, made reference to the opinion of another....
However, the said provision is a very important provision which deals with admissibility of report of a Government Scientific Expert. However the authenticity needs not be proved by a witness, which can be marked as an exhibited document. So far as the report is concerned, that is admissible in terms of the above section. It is also admissible without calling or examining the expert as a witness.
Thereafter without examining Dr.Sanjeev the CFSL report was taken on record and the evidence was closed; submission being that where there was a specific request by the defence counsel to examine the CFSL expert but not calling the CFSL expert and taking the report of the CFSL on record without giving a chance to the accused to cross-examine the said witness on this count suffers from an infirmity. Such a report was not admissible under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C. It is also not a case of the prosecution that this report was prepared by any of the category of persons mention....
3. The petitioner had already faced the agony of the trial for sufficient long time, therefore, the case should not have been sent to the learned trial court for recording the evidence of the handwriting expert. 2. The report, which was not per se admissible, would not become admissible by way of leading evidence. 1. The Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to remand the case of the learned trial court for recording the evidence to fill up the lacuna in the prosecution case.
In my view if the appellant was of such impression that the fact about impression of seal is falsely/wrongly stated in the report, it was for him to make a prayer to the trial court to summon the officer who prepared the report as a witness. I am of the view that the report being admissible in evidence under Section 293 Cr.P.C. every fact mentioned it is admissible in evidence. Although, the recovery was made on 6.4.2003 where the sample was sent for analysis as late as on 25.4.2003 but only by that reason also it can not be held that the packet of sample was tampered with ....
The defendants chose not to file any objection against the said report, therefore, the report was per se admissible. The finding of fact recorded on appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be outcome of misreading of documentary or oral evidence, as contended. The Court had appointed the Local commissioner i. e. Naib Tehsildar, who submitted his report. Both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the wall ABCD has been raised by the appellants in khasra No.23/2/1.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
