CrPC Section 293 – Reports Of Certain Government Scientific Experts

In the pursuit of justice, scientific evidence plays a crucial role in modern criminal trials. Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India is a pivotal provision that streamlines the admissibility of reports from government scientific experts. This article will delve into the intricacies of Section 293, exploring its provisions, scope, importance, challenges, and judicial interpretations, highlighting its significance in the Indian legal system.

What Is Section 293 Of CrPC?

Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is important in the Indian legal system. It enables the admission of reports prepared by governmental scientific experts into judicial proceedings and simplifies the admission of expert evidence in specific cases where judicial proceedings require specialized scientific knowledge.

Provision & Scope

Under Section 293(1), reports of specific government scientific experts can be used as evidence in judicial proceedings without summoning these experts to testify in court. The experts specified under 294(4) section comprise the experts as notified by the central government, and experts like Chemical Examiners Directors, Deputy Directors, or Assistant Directors of Central or State Forensic Science Laboratories come within the groups of government scientific experts whose reports are admitted under this provision. This non-exhaustive list demonstrates the provision's scope of scientific domains to ensure that various technical expertise is available in the judiciary.

Reports Admissibility

The admissibility of these reports is left to judicial discretion. Although section 293(1) allows the use of such reports as evidence, section 293(2) authorizes the court to summon the expert if it holds that the expert's testimony is necessary. This balances the efficiency of judicial proceedings and the parties' rights to challenge the expert's findings.

Importance In Criminal Trials

Scientific evidence has always been crucial in determining facts in criminal cases. Section 293 makes it easy to admit such evidence. Courts can expedite trials and reduce delays by accepting these reports without necessitating the expert's physical presence.

Illustrative Examples of Application

To understand the practical implications of Section 293, let's consider some real-life scenarios:

Example 1: Chemical Analysis In Drug Cases

In a drug trafficking case, the police apprehend a suspicious substance, which is sent to the Chemical Examiner for testing. The report reveals that the substance is a prohibited narcotic. Section 293 provides that such a report may be produced in court without calling the Chemical Examiner to give evidence. However, if the defense questions the validity of the findings or the technique employed by the Chemical Examiner, the court can call him for further elucidation.

Example 2: Explosives In Terrorism Cases

Assume a bomb explosion has occurred, and fragments from the explosion scene are forwarded to the Chief Controller of Explosives for analysis. The report from the expert determines the nature of the explosive used. If the court needs the expert to testify on the findings or answer any issues the defense raises, this report may be admissible as evidence under Section 293.

Example 3: Fingerprint Analysis

The director of the Fingerprint Bureau analyzes fingerprints in cases of theft. The report matches the prints with the accused's. In this case, the prosecution may produce this report under section 293 without requiring the expert's appearance. However, the court can require the expert's appearance when the accused raises objections that the prints do not tally.

Example 4: Serological Evidence In Sexual Assault Cases

In a case of sexual assault, biological samples are sent for analysis to the Serologist. The report of the expert points out that the clothing of the victim contains DNA belonging to the accused. Therefore, this report is given admission under Section 293 of the Evidence Act. If the defense questions the chain of custody or proves the DNA analysis wrong, the court might summon the serologist.

Weaknesses & Challenges Involved In Section 293

Section 293's limitations include its restriction to government experts (excluding private ones), the potential for bias, judicial discretion in summoning experts, and an outdated list of expert fields.

• Limited to Government Experts: This provision applies only to the specific government experts listed in the section. Reports from private experts or institutions are not covered and must be proven through testimony.
• Possibility of Bias: As the experts are government-appointed, there may be allegations of bias, especially in politically sensitive cases.
• Discretion to Summon Experts: Again, the court has discretion here, which may sometimes result in injustice if it refuses to summon an expert when the defense raises proper objections.
• Technological Advancements: The list of experts provided in Section 293 is not updated. New fields of forensic science, such as digital forensics or cybercrime investigations, have not been added to it.

Section 293 of the CrPC is a necessary provision that allows for the effective employment of scientific expertise in a criminal trial. The government scientific expert's report has been made admissible under it, which reduces delay in the matter and ensures that such scientific evidence is available on time to assist in administering justice. However, at the same time, such a provision also throws challenges that need to be solved through judicial interpretation and amendment in the legislation. Proper reforms would make Section 293 even stronger in the scientific advancements it utilizes to benefit the justice system.

Mechanisms For Safeguards & Judicial Oversight

The strength of the provision lies in its safeguards. Though the reports are prima facie evidence, courts exercise caution in relying solely on them. If any party disputes the findings, the court can summon the expert for cross-examination under Section 293(2). Thus, natural justice is maintained by allowing the accused or the prosecution to challenge the evidence.

Indian courts have pronounced a series of judgments over the application of Section 293. Some significant judgments include:

• Anand Pasi vs. State Of U.P.: In this case, the Allahabad court emphasized that unless the report's validity is disputed, such findings can not be questioned just because the expert's testimony is absent.
• Nizamuddin vs. State Of Delhi: In this case, the court decided that a report may be declared inadmissible unless the expert is questioned if it wasn't obtained from one of the experts specified in Section 293(4).
• S. K. Gupta v. State Bank of India: It was held that it may summon the expert if it is so inclined to believe the case is in need; if it satisfies the formalities of the report, then not an examination would prove the same to be invalid.
• Mela Singh Vs. State Of Delhi: It was held that it would be accepted by the Government scientific experts' report so far as it is found to be signed by Section 293(4).
• State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram: Here, the Supreme Court held that reports by junior scientific officers are admissible if presented under the aegis of a government scientific expert. However, such an expert may not be named under Section 293(4).

Conclusion

Section 293 of the CrPC is a vital tool for incorporating scientific expertise into criminal trials. By allowing the admissibility of reports from designated government scientific experts, it enhances efficiency and ensures access to crucial evidence. Continuous evaluation and potential amendments are necessary to keep Section 293 aligned with advancements in forensic science and ensure its continued effectiveness in the pursuit of justice.

FAQs

A few FAQs based on Section 293 of the CrPC are:

Q1. Who are considered government scientific experts under Section 293?

These experts are notified by the central government and include Chemical Examiners, Directors, Deputy Directors, or Assistant Directors of Central or State Forensic Science Laboratories, among others. The list is non-exhaustive, covering various scientific domains.

Q2. Are these expert reports automatically accepted by the court?

While admissible, the court has the discretion to accept or reject the reports. If a party disputes the findings or the methodology, the court can summon the expert for cross-examination.

Q3. How does Section 293 benefit criminal trials?

It expedites trials by avoiding delays caused by waiting for expert testimony. It ensures that scientific evidence is readily available to assist in administering justice, enhancing the fact-finding process.