Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. The common grounds in all the criminal appeals against conviction are that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law applicable in this case. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. All the eyewitnesses in this case have turned hostile. The witnesses of memorandum and seizure have also turned hostile. The prosecution has failed to establish the connection with the revolver seized from Appellant-Chotelal Nishad as there is nothing against him in the report of the ballistic expert and as the independent witnesses of memorandum and seizure have turned hostile, there had been no evidence to convict Appellant-Chotelal Nishad for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. The grounds urged for Appellant-Danesh are that the description given in the seizure memo with respect to the revolver seized at his instance and the description of the same by the ballistic expert differ from each other. The size of barrel of the revolver varies in the seizure memo and the report of the ballistic expert. The conviction is based on a weak type of evidence and the impugned judgment suffers from material irregularity. Therefore, Appellant-Danesh should have been extended the benefit of doubt. The grounds urged for Appellant-Pankaj Das @ Pinku are that he had no connection with the alleged conviction of offence and seizure of one motor-cycle and empty cartridges do not connect him with the offence in any manner without support of other evidence of the prosecution. On behalf of Appellant-Ratan Khattri, it is urged that the independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and all the eyewitnesses have turned hostile. As alleged, a knife was seized from his possession, however, no injury was found on the body of the deceased caused by use of a knife. Therefore, the conviction of Appellant-Ratan Khattri is bad in law and a prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned judgment.

10. Learned counsel for the Appellants argued that seizure of articles i.e. revolver, cartridges etc. vide Exhibit P-22 at the instance of memorandum statement (Exhibit P-21) of Appellant-Danesh has not been supported by the independent witnesses, which should have been disbelieved by the learned trial Court. Further, the discrepancy in the investigative procedure has been ignored by the learned trial Court. S.J.Jefrin (PW-63), Inspector, Azad Chowk, Raipur, has made no mention with respect to depositing of seized articles in the Maalkhana soon after the procedure was conducted. There is delay in sending the seized articles for forensic science laboratory examination and examination by the ballistic expert. As per the report (Exhibit P-54), articles were received in the State Forensic Science Laboratory on 09.01.1998 whereas the seizure of revolver etc. were made on 24.11.1997. This delay has not been explained. Further, it has been argued that the description of the seized revolver in the seizure memo and the description mentioned in the report of the ballistic expert differ from each other. It is also to be noticed that the length of the barrel mentioned in the seizure memo is also different from the description f the revolver mentioned by the ballistic expert. It is submitted that there is evidence that the seal was tampered as there was a news article that the Superintended of Police displayed the revolver before the media persons which was widely published in the newspapers. For this reason, the intactness of seals on the packets of revolver etc. alleged to be used in the commission of crime, which were sealed at the time of seizure, is doubtful as the seals were tampered to display the revolver before the media persons. Absence of evidence regarding depositing of sealed articles in the Maalkhana and their remaining in safe deposit till they were sent for examination by the ballistic expert also is a fact which needs to be noticed.

27. The seizure of country-made firearm and 4 cartridges from the possession of appellant Chhotelal Nishad vide Ex.P-38, seizure of a knife from the possession of appellant Ratan Khattri vide Ex.P-39 and seizure of a motorcycle are of no relevance and there is no evidence that seizure of these articles have any connection with the death of deceased.

28. The seizure of revolver of 0.455 bore from the possession of appellant Danesh and the revolver examined by ballistic expert have a marked difference vide Ex.P-22, the seizure memo mentions the serial No. of revolver as 6624 and the length of barrel is mentioned as 5.5", whereas the report of ballistic expert Ex.P-54 mentions the serial No.5624 and the length of barrel is 6.4". Defence has raised objection on the basis of this difference submitting that the revolver which was seized from the possession of appellant Danesh has not been examined by the ballistic expert. Further, the manufacturer of the seized revolver is mentioned is Webley & Scott in seizure memo Ex.P-22, whereas manufacturer of the revolver examined is shown to be Smith and Wesson in Ex.P-54. This is a significant difference which can not be ignored.

29. The argument submitted on behalf of the appellant Danesh that the seized revolver was never kept in safe custody, seals were tempered with and there being undue delay in sending the seized article for FSL/ballistic examination need no further discussion. The difference in details of the revolver seized and the revolver examined is so remarkable that any layman can express his opinion that the revolver examined by ballistic expert was not the same which was seized from the possession of appellant Danesh. Although, there is report in Ex.P-54 that the bullet head/slugs found in the body of the deceased were fired from the revolver examined by the ballistic expert A.K. Khan (PW-67). This may be so but there is no proof that this was fired from the same revolver which was seized from the possession of appellant Danesh. Similarly, statement of A.K. Khan (PW-67) on the basis of FSL report Ex.P-54 that the 3 empty cartridges found and seized from the possession of appellant Pankaj Das vide Ex.P-37 have no relevance. According to prosecution case, appellant Pankaj Das was in company of the appellant Danesh and the revolver which was allegedly fired by the appellant Danesh on the deceased, is not the same which has been examined by the Ballistic Expert. The empty cartridges may have been fired from the same revolver which was subjected to examination, but it cannot be assumed that these empty cartridges were the same which were used to fire upon the deceased without there being any direct evidence in this respect. Hence, evidence in this respect against appellant Pankaj Das is of no consequence and inconclusive.