Non-Examination Of Ballistic Expert Fatal To Prosecution Case If Inconsistencies Found In Witness Testimonies : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court held that where the direct evidence produced by the prosecution is found to be credible, then the non-examination of the ballistic expert and omission to produce the ballistic report may not be fatal to the prosecution's case. The Bench Comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that it is not that in every case where the death of the victim is due to...
The Supreme Court held that where the direct evidence produced by the prosecution is found to be credible, then the non-examination of the ballistic expert and omission to produce the ballistic report may not be fatal to the prosecution's case.
The Bench Comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan observed that it is not that in 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, however where the deceased died due to the gun shot, then the omission to submit the ballistic report and non-examination of the ballistic expert may turn fatal to the prosecution's case if the direct evidence relied by the prosecution proves to be untrustworthy or suffers from glaring inconsistencies.
“When there is direct eye witness account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain ballistic report and nonexamination 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.”, the Judgment authored by Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said.
In the instant case, the appellant-accused was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 302 (Punishment for Murder) and 307 (Abetment to Murder) of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction was confirmed by the High Court.
It is against the High Court's order confirming the conviction of the appellant-accused that the criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant-accused before the Supreme Court.
It was contended by the Appellant-accused that there are gross contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and the prosecution have failed to examine the material witnesses such as the ballistic expert as the omission to produce the ballistic report as well as the non-examination of the ballistic expert may prove fatal to the prosecution's case because of doubtful testimonies supplied by the prosecution witnesses.
Agreeing with the submissions of the appellant-accused, the Supreme Court after re-appreciating the evidence placed on record observed “that there are glaring inconsistencies in the prosecution version which have been magnified by the absence of the testimony of the material witnesses and the ballistic report coupled with the non-recovery of the weapon of crime”.
Non-Examination of Ballistic Expert Would Make Prosecution's Case Fatal If Inconsistencies Found in Eye Witness Testimony
The Supreme Court observed that obtaining the ballistic report and examination of the ballistic expert is a flexible rule as it is not that in 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. 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.
“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 nonexamination 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.”
The Supreme Court found that the evidence tendered by the eyewitnesses suffers from serious lacunae and cannot be said to be credible.
“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 nonexamination of ballistic expert would be immaterial.”, the Supreme Court said.
“Thus, on a careful analysis of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt as according to us, the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. 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. This is more so when the co-accused is acquitted by the trial court on the same set of evidence.”, the Supreme Court said while acquitting the accused.
Accordingly, the conviction of the accused was set aside, and directed to be released forthwith.
Counsels For Appellant: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, AOR Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Adv. Mr. Chandra Nand Jha, Adv. Mr. M.K. Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Sitesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.
Counsels For Respondent: Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR
Case Details:
RAM SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2024
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 144