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 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 the court can hold accused guilty for the offence under Arms Act if he had a country-made pistol, not in working condition?

  The next the question to be addressed is whether the appellant’s

conviction under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act is maintainable.

It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the country made

pistol (katta) was in a state of disrepair and therefore, could not be used as a weapon. It was argued that in view of the same, the country made pistol could not be considered as a firearm and therefore, neither the offence under Section 25 nor the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act was established.

23. The country made pistol (katta) recovered from the appellant

was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The FSL report

has been brought in evidence. The said report indicates that the

country made pistol is of 315 bore, which was designed to fire a

standard eight MM/.315 cartridge. It is also reported that a cartridge

recovered is a live one and could be fired through .315 bore firearm.

The said report (Ex.PW9/A) expressly records that the country made pistol recovered is a firearm and the cartridge is ammunition as designed under the Arms Act.

24. Sh. Puneet Puri, SSO (Ballistics), FSL was examined as PW9.

He had testified that the country made pistol was not in working order and required repair to bring it into working condition.

25. The contention that the country made pistol (katta) recovered

from the appellant is not a firearm, is unmerited. 

26. Undeniably, the country made pistol (katta) recovered from the appellant was designed to discharge a projectile and therefore, even though it may have fallen into disrepair it, nonetheless, falls within the definition of a ‘firearm’ within the meaning under Section 2(e) of the Arms Act.

27. It is also relevant to refer to Section 45 of the Arms Act, which

contains exclusionary clauses and inter alia, specifies that the Arms

Act would not apply to certain arms and ammunition in the given

circumstances. Clause (c) of Section 45 of the Arms Act is relevant and expressly provides that nothing in the Arms Act would apply to “any weapon of an obsolete pattern or of antiquarian value or in disrepair which is not capable of being used as a firearm either with or without repair”. Thus, a firearm, which is capable of being used as such with certain repairs is clearly not excluded from the scope of the Arms Act by virtue of Section 45(c) of the said Act.

28. In addition, a live cartridge was also recovered from the

appellant. A live cartridge falls within the definition of ‘ammunition’

as set out in Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Arms Act. Possession of

ammunition is a punishable offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act.

The use of such ammunition is punishable under Section 27 of the

Arms Act. Thus, there is little doubt that the appellant is guilty of

committing an offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the

Arms Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

 Judgment delivered on: 15.09.2020

 CRL. A. 807/2017

SONU @ RAJA  Vs STATE 

Print Page

When burden of proof is on accused to prove that he had licence to possess seized firearm?

Ultimately, the ballistic report shows that the bullets were fired from the very same firearm which was recovered at the instance of the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused has failed to show that he was holding valid pass or licence for possessing that firearm. If he was really having it, then it was a fact especially known to him. Therefore, in view of provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was for the appellant/accused to show that he had a licence to possess the seized firearm. This was not done by the appellant/accused.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 2011

Decided On: 10.01.2017

Shailendrakumar Satyanarayan Thakur

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V.K. Tahilramani and A.M. Badar, JJ.

Citation: 2017 ALLMR(CRI)1123

Print Page