The Delhi High Court held that the reports by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory experts are admissible in accordance with Section 293 of CrPC even without examining the expert.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Such evidence can be relied upon only if the same was exhibited by any other witness and not otherwise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The issue place before the bench was that the accused was alleged for having fired bullets upon police officers during an encounter punishable under Section 186, 353, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Petitioner was accused of conducting an illegal business operation of dealing with arms and ammunition and opened fire upon being raided by the Police.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Though the encounter had taken place in a public area, no independent witnesses were recorded and the examination-in-chief of all the police officers appears identical and rehearsed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The court observed that the bullets allegedly recovered as stated in the CSFL reports were not exhibited during the proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The report indicated that the bullets were recovered from the bulletproof jackets and that the said bullets were shot of the weapon recovered from the possession of the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code states provides for using any report or analysis provided by a Governmental scientific expert as evidence during the course of the trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even if the evidence given by the Police Officers is admissible, it is not substantive enough to adjudge the matter in that favor and following the principle of \u2018innocent until proven guilty\u2019, the court set aside the Petitioners conviction.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The Delhi High Court held that the reports by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory experts are admissible in accordance with Section 293 of CrPC even without examining the expert. Such evidence can be relied upon only if the same was exhibited by any other witness and not otherwise. The issue place before the bench was […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":8518,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[69,104,28],"tags":[3061,2308,861,3057,3059,3060,3056,2330,3058],"yoast_head":"\n