Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. Referring to Section 293, Cr.P.C. it is submitted that Section 293 itself provides considerable latitude to the concerned Court to summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report. It is, thus, submitted that conviction of the appellant deserves to be maintained, especially in view of the evidence which has come on record and also taking into consideration the fact that the appellant is habitual violator of privacy and appears to be a person of perverted mind, inasmuch as, after violating privacy of a 80 years old woman for which he has been convicted in ST No.109/2020, arising out of case crime No.105/2019 registered at Police NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27672 CRA No.4401 of 2021 & CRRFC No.03 of 2021 Station Sanodha, District Sagar under Sections 376, 302 of IPC, he soon committed another offence with a 12 years old girl, therefore, no leniency is called for.

35. When provisions contained in Section 293, Cr.P.C., are taken into consideration, then Section 293(1) Cr.P.C., itself provides that "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 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:27672 CRA No.4401 of 2021 & CRRFC No.03 of 2021 proceeding under this Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this Code."

36. Sub-Section (2) of Section 293, Cr.P.C., grants a discretion in the hands of the Court that if it thinks fit, may summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.

37. Sub-section (4) of Section 293 Cr.P.C., provides that this section applies to the following Government scientific experts, and then a list of seven categories is given.

45. In State of Kerala Vs. Arun Velenchary, 2002 Cr.L.J. 2512 (KER- DB), it is held that Sub-section (2) of Section 293, Cr.P.C. uses the word "may" and not "shall". On the facts of each case, the Court has to exercise the discretion whether the expert has to be examined.

46. Thus, it is evident that law is well settled and that is the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Karandeep Sharma (supra), that where there are doubts as to the efficacy of drawing of or preservation of the sample, then in that case it is mandatory to have evidence of the chemical examiner or the person so authorized under Section 293, Cr.P.C., before it can be taken as a piece of evidence.