Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, the court should not convict accused if prosecution fails to adduce evidence of Ballistic Expert In Cases Of Murder Caused By Firearms?

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

From Overload To Order: A 5-Step Workflow System For Judges

 Judicial work today is not just about deciding cases correctly; it is about managing an overwhelming flow of files, deadlines, hearings, and administrative duties with consistency and calm. A simple, repeatable workflow can significantly reduce stress, delay, and error in a judge’s day-to-day functioning.

The 5-step system below takes tools familiar to advocates—reminders, summaries, checklists—and adapts them to the judge’s perspective to create a structured, judge-friendly workflow.

1. The 7–2–4 Rule: Taking Control Of Judicial Deadlines

Print Page

Questions and answers on law (Part 86)

Q :-  Whether Sanction for all offences  under corruption  act is required , for which offences  sanction is not required? How sanction for prosecution in proved in cases under prevention of corruption act

Ans:- 1) Is sanction required for all PC Act offences?

No. Sanction under Section 19 PC Act is required only when the accused is a “public servant” and the court is taking cognizance of specified PC Act offences (bribery/criminal misconduct etc.) and the person is still covered as a public servant at the relevant time.

2) For which situations/offences sanction is not required?

Print Page

What are triple tests for grant of bail?

 The Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2020) 13 SCC 791, held that while deciding bail, the court should apply the triple or tripod test, namely: whether the accused is likely to flee from justice, whether he may tamper with evidence or influence witnesses, and whether his presence can be secured during trial. The Court further held that the gravity of the offence is also a relevant consideration, but bail cannot be refused mechanically if the triple test is otherwise satisfied.”

Print Page