Ombeer vs State of U.P. and Another

B.K. Sharma, J.—The learned A.G.A. has accepted notices on behalf of the Respondents. Heard the learned Counsel for the revisionist and the learned A.G.A. The matter relates to the admission of ballistic expert report Ex. Ka 21 in evidence. The accused revisionist moved an application before the Sessions Judge that the report be not read in evidence since it does not disclose the reason for reaching at the conclusion mentioned in the report and further because no photographs and negatives have been filed with the report. The learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order (Annexure 2), dated 1.1.1996 whereby he rejected the application and directed that the ballistic expert report be considered in evidence on merits at the time of the final argument in the trial in S.T. No. 380 of 1991 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 320, I.P.C. P.S., Bhurakalan, distt. Muzaffarnagar. Section 293(1), Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the report of Ballistic expert may be used in evidence in any inquiry or trial. Sub-section (2) of the section provides that the court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine such an expert on the subject-matter of its report. In view of the facts alleged in the application of the accused, it was fit and proper that the expert be summoned to appear in person along with the photographs and negatives on which the report was based to give evidence in court in respect of the same. The Sessions Judge did not exercise this power to summon the expert which he ought to have done. The impugned order (Annexure 2) is, therefore, set aside and the Sessions Judge concerned is directed to summon the expert in question u/s 293(2), Code of Criminal Procedure for his evidence and then proceed to dispose of the trial in accordance with law. This revision is finally disposed of in terms of the above order.