Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 301 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Munna Lal vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 24 January, 2023
In Munna Lal Vs. State of U.P., (2023) SCC Online SC 80,
this Court opined that since no weapon of offence was seized in
that case, no ballistic report was called for and obtained. This
Court took the view that failure to seize the weapon of offence on
the facts and in the circumstances of the case, had the effect of
denting the prosecution story so much so that the same together
with non-examination of material witnesses constituted a vital
circumstance amongst others for granting the appellants the
benefit of doubt.
Sukhwant Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 1995
25. This issue was again examined by this Court in
Sukhwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (1995) 3 SCC 367. In that
case, this Court observed that though the police had recovered an
empty cartridge from the spot and a pistol along with some
cartridges were seized from the possession of the appellant at the
time of his arrest, yet the prosecution did not send the recovered
empty cartridges and the seized pistol to the ballistic expert for
examination and expert opinion. This Court was of the view that if
such opinion would have been called for, comparison could have
been made which in turn could have provided link evidence
between the crime and the accused. It was noted that this again
22
was an omission on the part of the prosecution for which no
explanation was furnished. It was thereafter that this Court
declared as follows:
State Of Punjab vs Jugraj Singh & Ors on 14 February, 2002
26. However, in State of Punjab Vs. Jugraj Singh, (2002) 3
SCC 234, this Court opined that when there are convincing
evidence of eyewitnesses, non-examination of the expert would not
affect the creditworthiness of the version put forth by the
eyewitnesses.
Gulab vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 9 December, 2021
examination of ballistic expert in Gulab Vs. State of U.P., (2022) 12
SCC 677. In that case, the deceased had sustained a gunshot
injury with a point of entry and exit. In that case, prosecution had
relied on the eyewitnesses’ accounts of three eyewitnesses which
were found to be credible. Therefore, non-recovery of the weapon
of the offence would not dis-credit the case of the prosecution.
After referring to the previous decisions, this Court opined that in
the facts and evidence of the case, the failure to produce the report
by a ballistic expert who could testify to the fatal injuries being
caused by a particular weapon would not be sufficient to impeach
the credible evidence of the direct witnesses.
Pritinder Singh @ Lovely vs The State Of Punjab on 5 July, 2023
In Pritinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2023) 7 SCC 727,
this Court in the facts and evidence of that case held that
conviction could not be sustained. That apart, from not collecting
any evidence as to whether the gun used in the crime belonged to
the appellant or not, even the ballistic expert had not been
examined to show that the wad and pellets were fired from the
empty cartridges of the appellant. In that case which was based
on circumstantial evidence, it was held that when there was
24
serious doubt as to credibility of the witnesses, the failure to
examine ballistic expert would be a glaring defect in the
prosecution case.