Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XXIII: Evidence in Inquiries and Trials · B.–Commissions for the examination of witnesses
Section 293: Reports of certain Government scientific experts
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert to whom this section applies, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code.
(2) The Court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.
(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a Court, and he is unable to attend personally, he may, unless the Court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the Court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in Court on his behalf.
(4) This section applies to the following Government scientific experts, namely:—
(a) any Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government; [(b) the Chief Controller of Explosives;] 1. Ins. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 24 (w.e.f. 23-6-2006). 2. Subs. by Act 2 of 2006, s. 5, for certain words (w.e.f. 16-4-2006). 3. Subs. by Act 25 of 2005, s. 26, for cl. (b) (w.e.f. 23-6-2006).
(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau;
(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;
(e) the Director [, Deputy Director or Assistant Director] of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;
(f) the Serologist to the Government; [(g) any other Government scientific expert specified, by notification, by the Central Government for this purpose.]
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 293
-
Kailas S/o Bajirao Pawar v. The State of Maharashtra
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in ordering a re-trial; if not, then what would be the appropriate order that may be passed in this appeal.
-
Putai v. State of Uttar Pradesh
The accused-appellants were convicted for the offences punishable u/ss.376(2)(g), 201 and 302 of Penal Code, 1860. The High Court dismissed the appeals against conviction preferred by the accused-appellants.
-
Baljinder Kumar @ Kala v. State of Punjab
Whether the courts below erred in convicting the appellant for offences u/ss.302, 308 and 325, Penal Code, 1860 and imposing death sentence on him, when the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable…
-
Ramkirat Munilal Goud v. State of Maharashtra Etc.
Matter pertains to the correctness of the order passed by the High Court upholding the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for causing rape and murder of a child aged 3 years and 9 months.
-
Karandeep Sharma @ Razia @ Raju v. State of Uttarakhand
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whether the concurrent conviction of the appellant-accused for the kidnapping, rape/sexual assault and murder of a minor is sustainable.
-
Irfan Alias Bhayu Mevati v. State of Madhya Pradesh
In a case where the trial court relied upon the DNA report, whether the non-examination of the scientific experts involved in the process of conducting DNA profiling examination and issuing the report, led to the…
-
Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala
Appellant-accused was held guilty for the offences punishable u/ ss.302, 449, 309, IPC and sentenced accordingly. For the offence punishable u/s.302, IPC, he was sentenced to death. High Court confirmed the conviction,…
-
Naveen @ Ajay v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Whether appellant was afforded a fair trial; whether he was deprived of his valuable legal rights.
- Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi
- Ashok Kumar Singh Chandel v. State of U.P.
- Manoj Pratap Singh v. The State of Rajasthan
- M/S Cheminova India Limited & Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
- Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
- Manoharan v. State by Inspector of Police, Variety Hall Police Station, Coimbatore
- Hussain and Anr. v. Union of Lndia
- Rajiv Singh v. State of Bihar & Another
- Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics
- Ramnaresh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
- Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab
- Reference Under Article 317 (1) No.2 of 2008 in Re: Mehar Singh Saini, Chairman, Hpsc and Ors. v. --
- Keshav Dutt v. State of Haryana
- Sidhartha Vashisht @ Manu Sharma v. State (Nct of Delhi)
- T. Nagappa v. Y.R. Muralidhar
- Rajesh Kumar and Anr. v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram
- Dhananjaya Reddy Etc. v. State of Karn at Aka
- Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer v. V. Narasaiah
- Ammini and Ors. v. State of Kerala
- State of Rajasthan v. Bhup Ram
- State of Andhra Pradesh v. Gangula Satya Murthy