Will Non-Recovery Of Weapon Of Crime, Omission To Seek Ballistic Opinion & Non-Examination Of Ballistic Expert, Be Fatal To Prosecution Case?: SC Explains
The Supreme Court observed that the non-recovery of the weapon of crime by itself will not be fatal to the prosecution case.
However, it clarified that 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.
The Court observed thus while allowing an appeal filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court that confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge for the offence of murder.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan held, "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."
Advocate Pradeep Kumar Mathur represented the appellant while Advocate Ankit Goel represented the respondent.
In this case, the accused appellant was convicted under Section 301 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and was also convicted under Section 307 IPC. For the offence under Section 301/302 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and for the offence under Section 307 IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, both the sentences to run concurrently. His appeal before the High Court was dismissed and consequently, the said conviction and sentence imposed on him by the Sessions Court was confirmed.
As per the prosecution, the accused accompanied by another man came to a person’s residence and stated that both were residents of village. He was holding a country made pistol in his right hand and was instigated by his accompanied man by loudly saying that these people were creating disturbances; so kill them. Hence, he fired on the informant but he slipped below the cot and the bullet hit the left breast of his mother who cried aloud saying that she was dead. Due to this, the accused persons ran away and the mother died immediately due to the gunshot wound. Hence, the case was registered against them but the co-accused was given the benefit of doubt and was acquitted.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “… this Court emphasized that in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert becomes very important to connect the crime cartridge recovered during the investigation to the firearm used by the accused with the crime. Failure to produce expert opinion in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent.”
The Court added that the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt as as the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and any lingering doubt about the involvement of an accused in the crime he is accused of committing, must weigh on the mind of the court and in such a situation, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. It said that this is more so when the co-accused is acquitted by the trial court on the same set of evidence.
The Court further observed that 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.
“In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution could prove the accusation against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. As a matter of fact, on the same set of evidence, the trial court gave the benefit of doubt to the other accused Lala Ram primarily on the ground that there was a grudge between the accused and PW-1”, it also noted.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant.
Cause Title- Ram Singh v. The State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 128)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Pradeep Kumar Mathur, Advocates Arvind Kumar, Chiranjeev Johri, and Preeti.
Respondents: AOR Ankit Goel, Advocates Samarth Mohanty, and Gantavya Gulati.
