Scientific report admitted without objection cannot be challenged later; inconsistent recovery evidence created reasonable doubt and led to acquittal.

A relevant scientific report admitted in evidence without objection to its admissibility or mode of proof could not be challenged for want of formal proof at the appellate stage. The distinction between relevance and proof was applied, and the objection was treated as unavailable for the first time in appeal. On the recovery issue, material inconsistencies about the date and manner of seizure, officer participation, deposit of seized articles, and handling of the sample and forwarding form created serious doubt about the prosecution version. The prosecution therefore failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the scientific report could be challenged in appeal on the ground that it had not been formally proved when it was tendered and admitted in evidence without objection. (ii) Whether the prosecution proved the recovery and seizure case beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue (i): Whether the scientific report could be challenged in appeal on the ground that it had not been formally proved when it was tendered and admitted in evidence without objection.

Analysis: Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 creates a special rule for reports of specified Government scientific experts, but where a report does not fall within that provision, formal proof is ordinarily required. Even so, the objection must be taken at the trial stage. A relevant document admitted in evidence without objection to its admissibility or mode of proof cannot later be attacked in appeal merely because it was not formally proved. The distinction between relevance and proof was emphasised, and the consistent line of authority was treated as governing the point.

Conclusion: The objection to the scientific report was not open to be raised for the first time in appeal.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved the recovery and seizure case beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The evidence contained material inconsistencies on the date and manner of recovery, the presence and role of officers, the deposit of the seized articles, and the handling of the sample and forwarding form. These contradictions undermined the veracity of the prosecution story and created serious doubt about the integrity of the recovery process and the chain of custody.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained and were set aside, resulting in acquittal and release of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A relevant document admitted in evidence without objection to its mode of proof cannot be challenged for want of formal proof at the appellate stage, and a conviction cannot stand where material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence create reasonable doubt.

---