We find that the conviction on the basis of such evidence cannot be sustained. Apart from that, it is to be noted that even according to PW-11, the gun which was recovered from the car had two empty cartridges (Ex. P10 and P11). Furthermore, the evidence of Dr. Rakesh Kumar Goel (PW-5), who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, would show that there was no external exit wound, and wad and pellets were preserved and sealed. It is to be noted that apart from not collecting any evidence as to whether the said gun belonged to the Appellant Manjit Kaur, even the Ballistic Expert has not been examined to show that the wad and pellets were fired from the empty cartridges (Ex. P10 and P11). {Para 22}
23. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of this Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0305/1995 : (1995) 3 SCC 367:
21. .........It hardly needs to be emphasised that 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.
24. No doubt that this case has been recently distinguished by a three-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/1210/2021 : (2022) 12 SCC 677, relying on the earlier judgments of this Court in the cases of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0136/1962 : [1963] 3 SCR 585 and State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh MANU/SC/0098/2002 : (2002) 3 SCC 234.
25. However, 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. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the Accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1635 of 2010 and 1714 of 2010
Decided On: 05.07.2023
Pritinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.R. Gavai and Sanjay Karol, JJ.
Author: B.R. Gavai, J.
Citation: 2023 INSC 614, MANU/SC/0754/2023.
Print Page
