Brief Facts
- Case was pertaining to the death of a lady due to gunshot wound and FIR was lodged by her son alleging that the Appellant and Lala Ram came to his residence. Lala Ram had instigated Ram Singh by loudly saying that these people were creating disturbances; so kill them. Ram Singh fired on the informant but he slipped below the cot. The bullet hit the left breast of his mother Dulli and she died due to such injury.
- In the Sessions Trial, the appellant was convicted under Section 301 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as well as under Section 307 IPC. For the offence under Section 301/302 IPC, the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, and for the offence under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years, with both sentences to run concurrently. However, the Trial Court acquitted Lala Ram by giving benefit of doubt and also by noting the previous grudges between Lala Ram and PW-1 Informant.
- The appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences imposed by the Sessions Court were upheld by the High Court.
- Aggrieved by the order of the High Court the Appellant moved to the Apex Court.
Issues
- Whether it is mandatory to obtain the ballistic report and conduct examination of the ballistic expert in every case where the death of the victim is due to gunshot injury?
- Whether non recovery of the weapon can be fatal to the prosecution?
Held
- The Apex Court quashed the conviction order passed by the session court and High court and set aside the conviction sentence of the accused.
- Thus, what can be deduced from the above is that by itself non-recovery of the weapon of crime would not be fatal to the prosecution case. When there is such non-recovery, there would be no question of linking the empty cartridges and pellets seized during investigation with the weapon allegedly used in the crime. Obtaining of ballistic report and examination of the ballistic expert is again not an inflexible rule. It is not that in each and every case where the death of the victim is due to gunshot injury that opinion of the ballistic expert should be obtained and the expert be examined. When there is direct eye witness account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain ballistic report and non-examination of ballistic expert may not be fatal to the prosecution case but if the evidence tendered including that of eyewitnesses do not inspire confidence or suffer from glaring inconsistencies coupled with omission to examine material witnesses, the omission to seek ballistic opinion and examination of the ballistic expert may be fatal to the prosecution case.
- Applying the above proposition to the facts of the present case, we find that the evidence tendered by the eyewitnesses suffer from serious lacunae. Thus, their evidence cannot be said to be credible. That apart, material witnesses have not been examined. On the whole, the evidence tendered on behalf of the prosecution cannot be said to be full proof so much so that non-recovery of the weapon of offence, non-obtaining of ballistic opinion and non-examination of ballistic expert would be immaterial.
Relevant Paragraphs
- 29,30,31,32,33,34