Section 329 of BNSS

Source: Orissa High Court 

Why in News?

Recently, Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Chittaranjan Dash upheld the 1998 trial court conviction and life sentences of six men for the 1996 double murder in Kendrapara over a ₹1,000 loan dispute, ordering them to surrender within 15 days.  

• The Orissa High Court held this in the matter of Chandia @ Chandi Sethy & Ors. v. State of Odisha (2025). 

What was the Background of Chandia @ Chandi Sethy & Ors. v. State of Odisha Case,(2025) ? 

• In village Indupur, Kendrapara district, the first deceased (D-1), Sankarsan Sethy, earned his livelihood by catching and selling fish. About one and a half years before the incident, he had lent a hand loan of Rs. 1,000/- to his neighbour, accused Karunakar Sethy @ Nandu (A-2). Despite repeated demands, A-2 failed to repay the loan. While D-1 was in jail in connection with another case, A-2 paid him Rs. 200/- for expenses. After D-1’s release, around 15–20 days before the incident, he again approached A-2 for repayment of the remaining amount. 
• Two days before the occurrence, D-1 and his brother-in-law (D-2), Babuli Sethy, confronted A-2 at Tinimuhani, Kendrapara, which led to an altercation over the unpaid loan. D-2 had been staying at D-1’s house for 2–3 days before the incident. 
• On the morning of 19 June 1996, around 7:00 a.m., A-2 came to D-1’s house and invited him to the village Chandi temple, claiming he would repay the money there. Trusting this, D-1 and D-2 left together towards the temple. On the village road, they were intercepted and surrounded by a group of accused persons—A-2 and A-6 armed with tentas, A-3 with a crowbar, A-1 with a bhujali, and others with lathis. The assailants tied D-1 and D-2 with a rope, dragged them near the houses of some of the accused, and brutally assaulted them with the weapons, inflicting multiple serious injuries on various parts of their bodies. 
• The victims collapsed on the ground, bleeding and unconscious. The accused threatened the informant (P.W.7, father of D-1) not to intervene, removed the rope, and left, assuming the victims were dead. The family arranged an auto-rickshaw to take them to hospital. D-2 succumbed to his injuries en route to Kendrapara Hospital, while D-1, though admitted, died a few hours later. 
• Following an oral report by P.W.7, police registered Kendrapara P.S. Case No. 216 of 1996 under Sections 147, 148, 302, 326, 307, and 149 IPC. The investigation included seizure of blood-stained earth, weapons, and a rope allegedly used in the offence. Several accused were arrested; others were absconding initially. The post-mortem reports confirmed that both victims died of shock and haemorrhage caused by multiple injuries. 
• The charge sheet alleged that the attack was pre-planned and executed in prosecution of a common object to kill D-1, with D-2 being killed in the process. The Additional Sessions Judge, Kendrapara, in 1998 convicted the accused for murder offences—some under Section 302/34 IPC and others under Section 302/149 IPC—and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fine. The convicts then filed an appeal before the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court found the post-mortem evidence established homicidal deaths of both deceased, with injuries consistent with the assault described by the prosecution witnesses. 
• The dispatch of the FIR to court the next day was held not to be delayed in any suspicious manner; the Magistrate’s signature on the FIR showed it reached court promptly. 
• It reiterated that an FIR is not an encyclopedia; omissions of minute details do not make it unreliable, especially when lodged by a rustic informant in a distressed state. 
• Related eye-witnesses were considered natural witnesses since the offence occurred near their homes; mere relationship does not render them “interested” or unreliable if their testimony is otherwise credible. 
• Discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence were minor; medical evidence did not make the ocular account improbable or rule it out entirely. 
• Lapses by the Investigating Officer—such as not recording a dying declaration or preparing a detailed spot map—were not fatal where ocular testimony was cogent and trustworthy. 
• Under Section 293 CrPC, it was not mandatory to summon the forensic expert when the chemical examination report was admitted in evidence without objection from the defence. 
• The circumstances, including the pre-planned manner in which A-2 lured D-1 from his house and the group’s armed attack, showed the accused shared a common object and acted in furtherance of it, attracting liability under Sections 302/34 and 302/149 IPC. 

What is Section 329 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ? 

• About: 
  • Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 deals with "Reports of certain Government scientific experts" and falls under the category of statements and evidence. 
  • This section was previously covered under Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. 
  • Section 329 of BNSS essentially carries forward the same provisions with similar language and scope, maintaining continuity in how scientific expert reports are handled in criminal proceedings. 
  • This provision provides criminal trials by allowing scientific evidence to be admitted through written reports, reducing delays while preserving the court's power to examine experts when necessary. 
• Key Provisions of Section 329 BNSS: 
  • Purpose: This section allows reports from specified government scientific experts to be admitted as evidence in criminal proceedings without requiring the expert to personally appear in court initially. 
• Main Features: 
  • Admissibility of Reports: Documents purporting to be reports from designated government scientific experts can be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial, or proceeding under BNSS. 
  • Court's Discretion: The court may summon and examine the expert regarding their report if deemed necessary. 
  • Deputation Provision: If the expert cannot attend personally, they may send a responsible officer who is familiar with the case to represent them in court (unless the court specifically requires personal appearance). 
• Covered Experts: The section specifically applies to:  
  • Chemical Examiners/Assistant Chemical Examiners 
  • Chief Controller of Explosives 
  • Director of Finger Print Bureau 
  • Director of Haffkeine Institute, Bombay 
  • Directors/Deputy Directors of Forensic Science Laboratories 
  • Government Serologists 
  • Other scientific experts notified by State/Central Government