Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

97. As per the medical evidence brought on record, the bullet was fired from the right side and exited from the left side head of the deceased. Whereas, from the position of the place from where the fired bullet was allegedly recovered, it appears that it exited from the right side of the head of the deceased and it struck against the wall of the cemented almirah with such a force that some cement particles also got clinged on the bullet. The said position is going against the medical evidence because as per postmortem report, the exit wound was on the left side of the deceased and in view thereof, there was no occasion for the fired bullet to reach the right side of the deceased without bouncing back after striking on the bed or the wall of the room on the left side. It is nowhere the prosecution case that any such strike mark of the bullet was noticed on the left wall of the room. In cross examination, PW6 has deposed that the point containing bullet hit mark was at the height of approximately 5 ft. from the floor but he did not disclose on which side wall of the room said bullet hit mark was allegedly present i.e. whether it was on the wall of the left side of St. Vs. Parveen deceased or on the cemented almirah on the right side of the deceased. It is also pertinent to mention that as per the version of IO, he did not notice any mark even on the almirah on the right side after firing where the bullet would have fallen on the ground. There certainly ought to have some hit mark of bullet on the cemented almirah especially, when some particles of cement were also noticed by the IO. Perusal of the record shows that although a scaled site plan Ex. PW25/A which was prepared by PW25 after visiting the place of occurrence on 12.09.2013 does find mention point 'E' where bullet mark in open almirah was found and point 'F' just on the opposite wall on the left side of the deceased, where another bullet mark at the height of 2.15 cm was found but as already noted above, it is not consistent with the version of IO/PW32 who deposed that there was no bullet hit mark in the cemented almirah on the right side of the deceased. Even the photographs of the crime scene which have been placed on record as Ex.PW2/A-1 to PW2/A-16 nowhere show any such bullet mark on the walls of the room. In these circumstances, it is not clear as to how the bullet reached on the right side of the deceased without hitting some obstructions on the left side especially when the exit wound as per medical examination was on the left side.

101. On the specific question put to the witness by the court that whether from his report it could be concluded that cartridge case marked C/1 contained in parcel-I was not of the fired bullet marked BC/1 contained in parcel-2, to which the witness answered in affirmative. He further deposed that his opinion that the fired bullet contained in parcel-2 had not been fired from country made pistol W/1 contained in parcel-I was given after conducting test firing of the firearm in question in the laboratory with the laboratory stock . 315"/8mm cartridges and after test firing, test fired cartridges cases and test fired bullets were examined under the comparison microscope with the evident cartridge case and bullet (the one in the parcel-1 & parcel-2) and on the basis of said microscopic examination, it was opined that the evident cartridge case (C/1) had been fired from the country made pistol in question and the evident fired bullet (BC/1) had not been fired from the country made pistol in question. CW1 further deposed that the opinion was given on the basis of the difference of characteristics striation marks available on the evident fired bullet and on the test fired bullets.

105. Now, again coming to the question of contradictions between eye witness account and ballistics evidence. As already noted above that even the opinion of an expert is not the last word on the subject and has to be tested by the court on the scale of logic and objectivity before discarding a conflicting ocular evidence of an otherwise trustworthy and credible eye witness. As has been discussed in preceding paras of this judgment, PW1 i.e. complainant though was allegedly present in the room at the time of gun firing but, he himself had not witnessed the firing of gun shot hence, as far as the use of that pistol, which was allegedly recovered from the spot in inflicting gun shot injuries to the deceased is concerned, the account given by PW1 is not an account of an eye witness in a strict St. Vs. Parveen sense and therefore, cannot be given preference over the scientific evidence which has been duly tested by the court by examining the ballistics expert as a court witness. As per CW1, the fired bullet marked BC/1 taken out from parcel 2, was not fired from the country made pistol (W/1) contained in parcel 1. And his opinion is based on difference of striation marks available on the evident fired bullet and on the test fired bullet and same was noticed after microscopic examination of the two by comparison microscope in the laboratory.