Ballistic Expert's Evidence Important In Cases Of Murder Caused By Firearms: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that, in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would be a glaring defect when the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.

In this case, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, had upheld the conviction of the accused in a murder case. The conviction based on on the last seen theory and the extra-judicial confession made by the accused.

Reappreciating the evidence on record, the court noted that evidence as to whether the gun belonged to the accused was not available and even the Ballistic Expert has not been examined to show that the wad and pellets were fired from the empty cartridges.

The court referred to these observations made in Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 367:

"... in cases where injuries are caused by firearms,  the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a considerable importance where both the firearm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent."

The court further noted that this decision was distinguished by a three-Judges Bench in the case of Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh:

"It is to be noted that the case of Jugraj Singh (supra) was a case of direct evidence, where there was evidence of two eye-witnesses. The present case is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In view of the serious doubt with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would, in our opinion, be a glaring defect in the prosecution case."

The court ultimately held that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and set aside the conviction.

Case details

Pritinder Singh @ Lovely vs State of Punjab | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 516 | 2023 INSC 614

Headnotes

Criminal Trial - Ballistic expert evidence - In cases where injuries are caused by firearms, the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a considerable importance where both the firearm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent - Referred to Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab (1995) 3 SCC 367. (Para 23,24)

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established - Circumstances concerned “must or should” and not “may be” established -There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved” - The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty - The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one 9sought to be proved, and there must be a chain of evidence so complete so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused - However strong a suspicion may be, it cannot take place of a proof beyond reasonable doubt - Referred to Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116. (Para 5-8)

Criminal Trial - Extra judicial confession - Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambiguous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extrajudicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support - Referred to Munna Kumar Upadhyay alias Munna Upadhyaya v. State of Andhra Pradesh through Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh (2012) 6 SCC 174. (Para 12)

Murder case based on circumstantial evidence - Death caused by firearms - In view of the serious doubt with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would be a glaring defect in the prosecution case - Prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt- Accused acquitted.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment