Section 293 CrPC Is Dead —
How BNSS Changes Who Can Testify as a Forensic Expert in Indian Court
On July 1, 2024, India's Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 was officially replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. With that, the beloved — and controversial — Section 293 CrPC was consigned to legal history. In its place stands Section 329 BNSS, carrying forward the bones of the old provision but with a critical new twist: the power to expand who qualifies as a forensic expert exempt from court testimony. For anyone working in or studying forensic science in India, this is a seismic shift worth understanding from the ground up.
The Old Order: What Section 293 CrPC Actually Did
For over fifty years, Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 governed how forensic science reports entered Indian courtrooms. Its essential promise was efficiency: rather than physically hauling a forensic expert from a government laboratory all the way to a trial court to read out findings already committed to paper, the law allowed the written report itself to stand as evidence.
This exemption was rooted in a practical reality identified by the Law Commission of India: the designated forensic experts were very few in number, and compelling each one to appear in person at every case where their report was tendered would be "simply impossible." The provision traced its lineage all the way back to Section 510 of the CrPC 1882 and 1898, which originally exempted Chemical Examiners from mandatory court attendance.
Who Was Covered Under Section 293(4) CrPC?
The exemption was a closed, enumerated list. Only these government-designated experts could benefit from it:
This provision applied exclusively to government experts. Reports from private forensic laboratories, independent consultants, or private institutions were not covered at all — they had to be proved through oral testimony in every single case. Additionally, the list was static and failed to keep pace with emerging disciplines like digital forensics or cyber crime investigation.
What Could the Court Do?
Even under the old regime, the exemption was not absolute. Section 293(2) gave courts full discretion to summon and examine the expert if they considered it necessary. And if the expert could not attend personally, Section 293(3) permitted them to depute a "responsible officer who is acquainted with the facts of the case" to depose in their place. This meant the report was admissible by default, but the defence retained a channel — however limited — to push for cross-examination.
Enter the BNSS: A New Law, A New Number, A New Power
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 was passed by Parliament in December 2023 and came into force on July 1, 2024, replacing the CrPC in its entirety. The BNSS introduces 531 sections compared to the CrPC's 484, with 107 sections amended and 9 new sections incorporated.
Section 293 CrPC now maps to Section 329 BNSS — not Section 293 BNSS (which deals with "Disposal of case"). The renumbering alone has caused some confusion in legal practice.
On its face, Sections 329(1), 329(2) and 329(3) BNSS are nearly word-for-word identical to their CrPC predecessors. The court may still summon and examine the expert. The expert may still depute a responsible officer. The logic of efficiency is preserved.
The Game-Changing Clause: Section 329(4)(g) BNSS
Here is where the BNSS quietly revolutionises the entire framework. Sub-section 4 of Section 329 BNSS lists the covered experts, and the final entry — clause (g) — reads:
[NEW — S.329(4)(g) BNSS] "...any other scientific expert specified or certified, by notification, by the State Government or the Central Government for this purpose."
This single linguistic change carries enormous legal weight. Under the old law, only the Central Government could notify additional experts. The BNSS extends this power to State Governments as well, and — crucially — allows experts to be "certified", not just "specified." This means, at least in principle, that private forensic experts or those in specialised disciplines can be brought within the exemption through a government certification or notification process, without needing a permanent government position.
A State Government can now issue a notification certifying, for example, a private digital forensic expert, a DNA analyst at an accredited private lab, or a specialist in cybercrime investigation as a "scientific expert" for the purposes of Section 329 BNSS. Their reports would then be admissible in evidence without them having to testify in person at every trial where that report is relevant.
Side-by-Side: Section 293 CrPC vs. Section 329 BNSS
| Aspect | OLD Section 293 CrPC | NEW Section 329 BNSS |
|---|---|---|
| Parent Act | CrPC 1973 (Repealed July 1, 2024) | BNSS 2023 (In Force July 1, 2024) |
| Core Provision | Govt. scientific expert report admissible without oral testimony | Same — substantially retained |
| Court Discretion to Summon | Yes (S.293(2)) | Yes (S.329(2)) — retained |
| Deputation of Officer | Yes, unless court specifically requires personal appearance | Yes — retained (S.329(3)) |
| Who Can Expand the List? | Only the Central Government | Central Government OR State Government |
| Method of Inclusion | Notification / Specification only | Notification OR Certification |
| Private Expert Coverage | Excluded entirely | Possible via State/Central Govt. certification |
| Digital / Cyber Experts | Not explicitly covered | Can be included via notification |
| Corresponding Old Section | — | Section 293 CrPC |
The Bigger Picture: Section 176(3) BNSS — The Mandatory Forensics Mandate
The change to expert testimony rules does not exist in isolation. It is part of a broader, sweeping forensic revolution that the BNSS introduces, the centrepiece of which is Section 176(3) BNSS.
"On receipt of every information relating to the commission of an offence which is made punishable for seven years or more, the officer in charge of a police station shall… cause the forensic expert to visit the crime scene to collect forensic evidence in the offence and also cause videography of the process on mobile phone or any other electronic device."
This provision fundamentally transforms how India investigates serious crime. Under the old CrPC, whether forensic experts visited crime scenes was entirely at the discretion of the investigating officer. Section 176(3) BNSS makes it mandatory for all offences punishable with seven or more years of imprisonment — which covers murder, rape, grievous hurt, kidnapping, dacoity, serious economic offences, and large swaths of the Indian Penal Code's most serious provisions.
Key Features of Section 176(3)
A forensic expert must physically visit the crime scene and collect evidence. The investigation cannot proceed as usual without this step for qualifying offences.
The entire forensic process at the crime scene must be recorded on a mobile phone or other electronic device. This creates an unbroken audio-visual chain of custody from the moment of forensic intervention.
States have up to five years from the law's enactment to notify the implementation date. If a state lacks forensic facilities, it must use another state's facilities until its own are developed.
The Crisis Beneath the Reform: India's Forensic Infrastructure Problem
The ambitious mandates of the BNSS run headlong into a brutal ground reality: India's forensic science infrastructure is in crisis. The same laws that demand more forensic experts are being enacted against a backdrop of staggering vacancies, backlogged laboratories, and underfunded institutions.
A report by Project 39A — the criminal justice research centre at National Law University Delhi — produced in collaboration with the Ministry of Home Affairs found that of 3,211 sanctioned posts across 26 forensic science laboratories, 40% were vacant, with more than two-thirds of those vacancies in scientific posts. The SFSL Lucknow had the worst vacancy rate at 73%.
The situation was serious enough that the Union Government informed the Supreme Court of these numbers, with the Court expressing alarm at the scale of scientific vacancies. Delay in receiving forensic reports is already one of the primary reasons criminal trials drag on for years. The BNSS's expanded mandate will, experts warn, put "immense stress" on labs already drowning in backlogs.
Government Response: The National Forensic Infrastructure Enhancement Scheme
To address this, the Government of India approved the National Forensic Infrastructure Enhancement Scheme in 2024, with a total outlay of ₹2,254.43 crore scheduled for 2024–25 to 2028–29. The scheme funds eight new Central Forensic Science Laboratories, nine new campuses of the National Forensic Sciences University (NFSU), modernisation of existing labs, advanced equipment procurement, and targeted recruitment to fill scientific vacancies.
Expanding the Definition: Private Experts and New Disciplines
One of the most practically significant — and most debated — elements of the BNSS reforms is the expansion of "forensic expert" to potentially include private practitioners. Section 176(3) BNSS, when read with Section 329(4)(g), creates a legal architecture where:
State Receives Crime Report for Offence (≥7 Years)
Police officer obligated to involve a forensic expert at the crime scene under S.176(3).
If State Lacks Forensic Facility
State must arrange use of another state's facility until its own is developed — or engage a government-certified private expert.
Expert Prepares Report
If the expert is notified/certified under S.329(4)(g) BNSS by State or Central Govt., their report is admissible without oral testimony by default.
At Trial — Report as Evidence
Report enters court record. Defence may challenge; court may exercise discretion to summon expert. If summoned, expert may depute a fellow officer unless personal attendance is specifically directed.
Legal scholars and criminal justice researchers have flagged that including private forensic experts — without robust regulation, accreditation standards, and audit mechanisms — creates accountability risks. Unlike government experts who operate under departmental oversight and service rules, private practitioners may lack equivalent checks. The BNSS does not itself create a regulatory framework for private forensic experts; that gap remains to be filled by subordinate legislation or policy.
The Cross-Examination Question: Accused Rights Under BNSS
Perhaps the most constitutionally fraught dimension of these reforms is the tension between evidentiary efficiency and the accused's right to cross-examine witnesses — a core element of the right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Under both the old and new regimes, the court retains discretion to summon the expert. But researchers have pointed out that Section 330(1) BNSS — which deals with no-formal-proof of certain documents — adds a new proviso that tends to restrict when formal proof (and thereby cross-examination) of documents is insisted upon. When a party does not object to a document's genuineness within 30 days of receiving it, the document is treated as proved. This structural pressure on the defence to respond within strict timelines may, in practice, reduce the frequency with which forensic experts are summoned for cross-examination.
As Project 39A's analysis notes, Section 329(4) BNSS (like its predecessor) creates an "artificial distinction between forensic examiners practising the same forensic discipline" — those with specific government designations are exempt from testifying; those without them, doing identical work, must appear in person. The BNSS's expansion of who can be notified addresses this partially, but only if governments actually exercise their notification/certification powers.
Judicial Responses: Courts Begin Applying the New Law
Even within a year of the BNSS coming into force, courts have begun grappling with its forensic provisions. In Suresh v. State of Kerala (2025), the Kerala High Court issued a landmark judgment mandating compulsory compliance with Section 176(3) BNSS for offences punishable with seven or more years. The Court directed the State Police Chief and Home Department to ensure:
- Compulsory association of forensic experts at crime scenes for qualifying offences.
- Adoption of the Union Government's e-Sakshya digital evidence platform.
- Training, supervision, and accountability mechanisms for investigating officers.
The Court drew from earlier Supreme Court jurisprudence in Pooja Pal v. Union of India (2016) and Tomaso Bruno v. State of U.P. (2015), both of which emphasised that scientific evidence must supplement traditional investigative methods, and that failure to produce available scientific evidence can attract adverse inference against the prosecution.
What This Means for the Forensic Professional
If you are a forensic scientist, forensic student, legal practitioner, or criminal justice professional in India, here is what these changes mean for you:
A Brief Legislative History
S.510 CrPC 1882 — The Origin
Chemical Examiners first exempted from mandatory court testimony. The ancestor of all later forensic expert provisions.
S.293 CrPC 1973 — The Familiar Provision
Expanded to six categories of government scientific experts. Central Government given power to notify additional experts.
BNSS Passed by Parliament (December 2023)
Section 329 BNSS introduced, expanding notification power to State Governments and adding "certification" as a route to expert inclusion. Section 176(3) introduces mandatory crime scene forensics.
BNSS Comes Into Force — July 1, 2024
CrPC repealed. S.293 CrPC dead. S.329 BNSS is the law of the land. National Forensic Infrastructure Enhancement Scheme (₹2,254 Cr) approved.
Kerala HC in Suresh v. State of Kerala
First major judicial directive mandating compliance with S.176(3) BNSS. Sets a precedent for other High Courts.
Outer Limit for S.176(3) State Notifications
All states must have notified S.176(3) implementation by this deadline, making mandatory crime scene forensics universal across India.
Conclusion: Evolution, Not Revolution — But the Details Matter
The death of Section 293 CrPC and the birth of Section 329 BNSS is, at its core, an evolutionary story rather than a revolutionary rupture. The foundational logic — that scarce, specialist forensic experts should not be pulled away from their laboratories to appear personally at every trial — survives intact. What has changed is the geography of power and the potential breadth of coverage.
By extending notification and certification powers to State Governments, the BNSS acknowledges India's federal forensic reality: different states have different needs, capacities, and expert ecosystems. By permitting the certification of private experts, the BNSS — at least theoretically — opens the door to a more diverse, responsive forensic expert community that can be brought within the court-admissibility framework.
But the reforms are only as strong as their implementation. With 40% vacancies in forensic labs, an as-yet-unsettled regulatory framework for private expert certification, and a five-year window that leaves states with enormous latitude on when to operationalise mandatory crime scene forensics, the gap between law on paper and law in practice remains wide.
For the Budding Forensic Expert, the message is clear: know your Section 329 as well as you knew Section 293. Understand the certification pathway. Watch for State and Central Government notifications. And remember that the law's promise to make Indian criminal justice more scientific is ultimately dependent on you — the forensic professional — and the quality of the work you do.
📚 Sources & References
- Vakeel360 Legal Team, "CrPC Section 293 to BNSS Section 328": vakeel360.com
- Project 39A, "Criminal Law Bills 2023 Decoded #17: Forensic Evidence": p39ablog.com
- ApniLaw, "Section 329 BNSS": apnilaw.com
- Drishti Judiciary, "Section 329 of BNSS": drishtijudiciary.com
- Lawctopus, "Decoding the BNSS 2023": lawctopus.com
- Mondaq, "New Criminal Laws Are In Force: What's Changed?": mondaq.com
- The Print, "What new criminal law says about forensic evidence": theprint.in
- IJLLR, "Revolutionizing Criminal Investigations: The Forensic Mandate Under Section 176 of BNSS": ijllr.com
- Bar & Bench, "Revolutionising digital forensics: India's new legal frontiers": barandbench.com
- IndiaSpend, "Large Vacancies, Underutilised Budgets In India's Forensic Science System": indiaspend.com
- The Wire Science, "What Really Is Holding Back Forensic Science in India?": science.thewire.in
- LexisNexis, "Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita: Paradigm Shift": lexisnexis.com
- CaseMine, "Suresh v. State of Kerala (2025)": casemine.com
- Usthadian Academy, "National Forensic Infrastructure Expansion in India": usthadian.com
- Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Sabha Q&A No.3452, Dec 17, 2024: mha.gov.in
- Record of Law, "False Forensic Evidence and Wrongful Convictions in India: Gap in the BNSS": recordoflaw.in
- RestTheCase, "Section 293 CrPC": restthecase.com
- BNSS 2023 Official Text, India Code: indiacode.nic.in
