Introduction:
In the case of Chandia @ Chandi Sethy & Others v. State of Odisha [Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1998; Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 104], decided on August 11, 2025, the Orissa High Court comprising Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash upheld the conviction of six appellants in a brutal double murder case and clarified an important point of criminal procedure law. The Court held that it is not mandatory for the prosecution to examine a Scientific Officer or forensic expert in order to prove a chemical examination report, as long as the requirements of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are satisfied. The ruling came in the context of an appeal arising from the 1998 conviction for a double murder committed over a dispute involving repayment of a mere ₹1000. The defence had challenged the admissibility of the chemical examination report on the grounds that its author was not examined as a witness. However, the Court rejected this contention, relying on established precedents to affirm that such reports can be admitted and relied upon without formal proof by the maker, provided no objection is raised during trial and no application is filed to summon the expert.
Arguments of the Appellants:
The appellants, represented by Advocate Ms. Adyashakti Priya, contended that the prosecution had failed to follow a fundamental evidentiary requirement by not producing the forensic expert who prepared the chemical examination (C.E.) report in court. They argued that the absence of the expert’s testimony deprived the defence of an opportunity to cross-examine and test the veracity of the report’s findings, thereby violating the principles of fair trial. Emphasizing that the report had been marked as an exhibit solely through the Investigating Officer (I.O.)—without the author’s presence—they claimed that this procedural lapse made the report inadmissible in evidence. According to them, the authenticity and accuracy of the findings could not be conclusively established unless the expert was examined in person. They also argued that such omission undermined the chain of custody of the evidence and created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution’s case. The appellants maintained that the trial court’s reliance on the C.E. report without expert testimony constituted a grave legal error warranting reversal of their conviction.
Arguments of the State:
The State, represented by Additional Standing Counsel Mr. Aurovinda Mohanty, refuted the appellants’ contentions, asserting that the C.E. report was admissible under Section 293(1) CrPC, which explicitly permits the use of reports prepared by government scientific experts in evidence without formal proof. The State pointed out that the report in question was duly marked as an exhibit (Ext. 12) during the examination of the Investigating Officer, and crucially, it was admitted without objection from the defence at the trial stage. Further, the defence had not filed any application under Section 293(2) CrPC to summon the expert for examination. Mr. Mohanty relied on authoritative precedents, including Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka (2001) and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram (2004), in which the Supreme Court held that forensic reports issued by government experts could be relied upon without summoning the author, unless the court considered their presence necessary or the defence made a request. He stressed that procedural safeguards were respected, and the report was legally admissible, making the appellants’ challenge untenable.
Court’s Judgment:
After carefully considering the submissions and scrutinizing the trial record, the Bench began by outlining the legislative framework of Section 293 CrPC. Sub-sections (1) and (2) provide that reports prepared by certain categories of government scientific experts—such as Chemical Examiners, Serologists, and Directors of forensic laboratories—may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial, or other proceeding, and it is not obligatory for the prosecution to call such experts to testify in person. However, the court retains the discretion to summon them if it considers their presence necessary, and the defence may also request the same. Applying these provisions, the Court noted that in the present case, the C.E. report (Ext. 12) had been introduced during the testimony of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 10) and was admitted into evidence without objection from the defence. Furthermore, the defence did not file any application to summon the author of the report at any stage of the trial.
The Court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dhanajaya Reddy (2001), where it was held that the report of a serologist can be admitted in evidence without formal proof. Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram (2004), the Apex Court clarified that Section 293(1) CrPC allows such reports to be used in evidence without summoning the expert, as long as the document bears the signature of a government scientific expert and pertains to a matter duly referred to him in the course of an inquiry or trial. The Bench also referred to other precedents reinforcing the principle that the probative value of such reports is not diminished merely because their author is not examined, unless the defence raises a specific and timely objection.
Addressing the appellants’ argument about the alleged prejudice caused, the Court emphasized that the defence’s failure to object at the trial stage or to request the expert’s examination amounted to acquiescence in the admission of the report. The Bench held that allowing the appellants to challenge the report’s admissibility at the appellate stage, after having accepted it without protest during trial, would amount to permitting an abuse of process.
On the factual matrix of the case, the Court recounted the background: the dispute over ₹1000 had escalated into a violent confrontation on June 19, 1996, when the second accused lured the first deceased to a temple under the pretext of repaying the loan. Along the way, both deceased persons were ambushed by the accused group, who inflicted fatal injuries with deadly weapons. The brutality of the attack, the medical evidence, eyewitness testimonies, and the corroborative material including the C.E. report convinced the trial court to convict the accused.
The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s assessment of evidence. It noted that the convictions under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (for four accused) and Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC (for five others) were supported by cogent and reliable evidence. Since the appellants before the High Court were six of the original nine convicts, their conviction for murder and the life sentences imposed were upheld.
The Court concluded by affirming that in law, a chemical examination report or forensic report prepared by a government expert remains admissible and reliable evidence even without the author’s oral testimony, provided the statutory safeguards under Section 293 CrPC are observed and there is no procedural objection. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were directed to surrender to serve the remainder of their life imprisonment.