Section 296 of CrPC : Section 296: Evidence of formal character on affidavit.

Explanation using Example

Example 1:

Scenario: A police officer, Inspector Sharma, is required to provide evidence regarding the chain of custody of a piece of evidence (a blood-stained knife) in a murder trial.

Application of Section 296: Inspector Sharma's evidence is of a formal character, as it pertains to procedural details rather than substantive facts of the case. Instead of appearing in court, Inspector Sharma submits an affidavit detailing the chain of custody of the knife. The affidavit is read in court as evidence.

Outcome: The court accepts the affidavit as evidence. However, the defense counsel believes there are inconsistencies in the chain of custody and requests the court to summon Inspector Sharma for cross-examination. The court, considering the request, summons Inspector Sharma to testify in person about the details in his affidavit.

Example 2:

Scenario: Dr. Mehta, a forensic expert, conducted a routine analysis of fingerprints found at a crime scene. His report is required in a burglary trial.

Application of Section 296: Dr. Mehta's evidence is of a formal character, as it involves technical details of fingerprint analysis. He provides his findings in an affidavit, which is submitted to the court.

Outcome: The court reads Dr. Mehta's affidavit as evidence during the trial. The prosecution finds the affidavit sufficient and does not request further examination. However, the defense counsel wants to challenge the methodology used in the fingerprint analysis and requests the court to summon Dr. Mehta for cross-examination. The court, upon this request, summons Dr. Mehta to testify about the specifics of his analysis and the conclusions drawn in his affidavit.