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

Supreme Court: Ballistic Report Forwarded By Lab Director Or Deputy/Assistant Director Under The Seal Is Admissible In Evidence U/S 293 of CrPC

 The decision of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram45is a complete answer to this submission. In an identical situation, this Court held that there is no illegality in the way the prosecution has obtained the ballistic report under Section 293. The relevant portion of the decision is as under:

“6. Secondly, the ground on which the High Court has thrown out the prosecution story is the report of the ballistic expert. The report of the ballistic expert (Ext. PX) was signed by one Junior Scientific Officer. According to the High Court, a Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) is not the officer enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, therefore, in the absence of his examination such report cannot be read in evidence. This reason of the High Court, in our view, is also fallacious. Firstly, the forensic science laboratory report (Ext. P-X) has been submitted under the signatures of a Junior Scientific Officer (Ballistic) of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh. There is no dispute that the report was submitted under the hand of a government scientific expert. Section 293(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a government scientific expert under the section, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under the Code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the Code. The High Court has completely overlooked the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 293 and arrived at a fallacious conclusion that a Junior Scientific Officer is not an officer enumerated under sub-section (4) of Section 293. What sub-section (4) of Section 293 envisages is that the court is to accept the documents issued by any of the six officers enumerated therein as valid evidence without examining the author of the documents. xxx {Para 170}

171. In view of the fact that the ballistic report has come from the office of the Assistant Director bearing his seal and having considered the same in the context of Section 293(4) Cr.P.C., as explained by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram46 we are opinion that the Trial Court committed a serious error in rejecting the ballistic report and it was necessary and compelling for the High Court to reverse the finding of the Trial Court on this count also.

X. The rejection of the FSL (ballistic) report is another grave mistake of the Trial Court. The conclusion of the Trial Court that the ballistic report is inadmissible as it is not in consonance with the requirement of Section 293 Cr.P.C. is entirely wrong. We have explained this in detail. In an identical situation this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Mast Ram51 has explained how the ballistic report is in complete compliance of the statutory provision. The High Court had to necessarily step in to prevent a grave miscarriage of justice.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

Coram: UDAY UMESH LALIT; CJI., S. RAVINDRA BHAT; J., PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; J.

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 946-947 OF 2019; 

Dated: NOVEMBER 04, 2022 

ASHOK KUMAR SINGH CHANDEL Vs STATE OF U.P.

Author: PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

Dated: NOVEMBER 04, 2022 

Print Page