as Ext. 105 and indicates that the soil sample collected from the pair of shoes tallied with the soil sample that was recovered from the pond in respects of hue, physio-chemical characteristics and spectrochemical composition. 72. First of all, we may observe that there is no evidence to show that the aforesaid observations made by the expert in Ext. 105 are admissible ipso facto under Section 293 of the CrPC which is equivalent to Section 329 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It may be noted that the expert who prepared the report was not examined by the prosecution. 73. Furthermore, the findings in this report are absolutely vague and inconclusive. If at all, the prosecution desired to prove without any exception that the soil found on the shoes of the accused 64 Criminal Appeal No(s). 1954-1955 of 2022