Section 293 CrPC - Ballistic Report Under The Seal of Deputy Director Is Admissible In Evidence - Supreme Court

The Supreme Court stated that a ballistic report submitted by a lab's director, deputy director, or assistant director under seal can be considered to have complied with Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Any document purporting to be a report under the signature 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, according to Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Allahabad High reversed the Trial Court's decision to acquit the defendants in this case and found all of them guilty of violating Sections 148, 302 read with 149, and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code. They were all given life sentences in jail. The Trial Court refused to admit the ballistic report while clearing the defendant in a murder case on the grounds that it was not a report self-signed by an Assistant Director but rather one of some Scientific Officer that the Assistant Director had simply forwarded. While allowing the appeal, the High Court ruled that the report could not have been ignored.

Observing that the report should be treated as being under the hand of the Government Scientific Expert, who is the "Director [, Deputy Director or Assistant Director] of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory," as provided by Section 293(4), the Apex Court bench noted that this aspect, while reaffirming the views of the High Court, demonstrates that the requirement under Section 293 is in fact complied with (e). In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram (2004) 8 SCC 660, the bench of justices made the following observations in support of the High Court's ruling: "In its judgement upholding the High Court judgement, the bench has also discussed in detail various factual and legal aspects involved in this case," they added.

Ashok Kumar Chandel vs State of UP