Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. ASI Madan Lal P.S. Siwani sd/- Madan Lal ASI (English)
2. EHC Jagbir Singh 963 P.S. Siwani sd/- Jagsir Singh 963 (English) Sd/- 8.12.08 SHO, P.S. Siwani"

FSL REPORT

18. Through memo No.149-DSP(s) drawn on 10.02.2009 certain incriminatory items/weapons of offence became sent vide RC No.49 of 17.02.2009, through Sajjan Kumar No.447 to the FSL concerned, for examinations thereof being made by the Expert concerned. The result of the examination as made by the FSL, on the .38 self loading revolver, makes it forthrightly clear, that the firing mechanism thereof was found to be in order, but the ballistic expert has refrained from making any firm opinion, about the timing of bullets/pellets being fired therefrom. The report of the Ballistic Expert is carried in Ex.PQ. The relevant result is extracted hereinafter.

"RESULT
1. The .38" revolver marked W/1 is a firearm as defined in Arms Act 54 of 1959. Its firing mechanism was found in working order.


                                   11 of 14

 CRA-D-562-DB-2010 (O&M)                                                  -12-
2. The .38" revolver marked W/1 had been fired through. However, scientifically, the time of its last firing can not be given."

However, since in the opening of the Ex.PQ the ballistic expert has pronounced that smokeless powder was detected from the barrel of .38 revolver, resultantly when a bullet did become fired therefrom. Thus, even if the ballistic expert, has refrained from giving a firm opinion about the timing when the relevant firearm was used, so as to relate it to the time of occurrence of the crime event. Nonetheless, since as above stated the present convict remained under absconsion from 10.03.2005 to 08.12.2008. Therefore, it appears that evidence with respect to the time or age of the user of the firearm by the present convict, so as to relate it to the time of the happening of the crime event, but may have disappeared or the relevant evidence may have deteriorated, but obviously with the above prolonged elapse of time, since its user, and, its recovery being made. Conspicuously also when the signatured disclosure statement made by the convict has been for reasons (supra), concluded to be completely valid besides when the same also holds the requisite evidentiary worth, thus, when also the effectuation of the relevant recovery was but a sequel thereof. Resultantly, when the relevant recoveries are also valid, and but, do embody the best incriminatory evidence especially when they are proven to be neither concocted nor tainted. Therefore, irrespective of the ballistic expert not making any vivid echoing in Ex.PQ, with respect to the time of user of the crime weapon by the convict, yet the factum of its user at the relevant time by the convict becomes fully established. SUMMARIZATION OF PRINCIPLES I. If a signatrured disclosure statement leads to the relevant recovery(ies) of weapon(s) of offence, being made at the 12 of 14 CRA-D-562-DB-2010 (O&M) -13- accuseds' instance, then evidentiary worth is to be assigned thereto(s).