From Barrel to Bench: How a Sessions Court Should Deal With Ballistic Reports in Firearm Trials?

1. Statutory backdrop: expert opinion and ballistics

In cases involving firearms, the court has to form an opinion on scientific matters such as type of weapon, working condition, range of fire, and whether a particular bullet or cartridge was fired from a particular weapon. These areas lie beyond common judicial experience and fall within “science” under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act and its successor provision, Section 39 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

A ballistic expert is a person specially skilled, by study and experience, in firearms, ammunition, trajectories and related forensic examination, and his opinion is a relevant fact when such scientific questions arise in the trial. However, the evidence of an expert is advisory; it is to assist, not to bind, the court, and must be weighed with the entire evidence on record.

Print Page

Supreme Court : Under which circumstances the omission to seek ballistic opinion and examination of the ballistic expert may be fatal to the prosecution case?

Ratio Decidendi:

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.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2024 

Decided On: 21.02.2024

Ram Singh Vs. The State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.

Author: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Citation: 2024 INSC 128 ,MANU/SC/0125/2024

Print Page

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

Whether accused is entitled to be acquitted if prosecution has failed to examine the Ballistic Expert?

 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).

23. It will be relevant to refer to the following observations of

this Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh v. State of

Punjab (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.”

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1635 OF 2010

PRITINDER SINGH @ LOVELY Vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB 

Author: B.R. GAVAI, J.

Dated: JULY 05, 2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page