Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.30 seconds)Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 25 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Vineet Kumar Chauhan vs State Of U.P on 14 December, 2007
7.5 At this stage, it would also be relevant to
refer to the observations made by Hon'ble the Apex
Court in 'VINEET KUMAR CHAUHAN' (Supra), wherein, the
Apex Court has observed and held as under;
Section 135 in Bombay Police Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 10 August, 1962
"11. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition that
in every case where a firearm is allegedly used by an
accused person, the prosecution must lead the evidence
of a Ballistic Expert to prove the charge, irrespective of
the quality of the direct evidence available on record. It
needs little emphasis that where direct evidence is of
Page 37 of 40
Downloaded on : Mon Aug 08 20:10:18 IST 2022
R/CR.A/767/2013 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2022
such an unimpeachable character, and the nature of
injuries, disclosed by post-mortem notes is consistent
with the direct evidence, the examination of Ballistic
Expert may not be regarded as essential. However,
where direct evidence is not available or that there is
some doubt as to whether the injuries could or could not
have been caused by a particular weapon, examination
of an expert would be desirable to cure an apparent
inconsistency or for the purpose of corroboration of oral
evidence. (See: Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab )
Article 25 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
1