In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of ballistic evidence in cases involving gunshot injuries. A division bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan clarified that while the non-examination of a ballistic expert and the absence of a ballistic report may not always harm the prosecution's case, their omission can become critical if the direct evidence lacks credibility or exhibits inconsistencies.
Brief Facts:
The appellant-accused in this case was found guilty by the Trial Court for committing offences under Sections 302 (Punishment for Murder) and 307 (Abetment to Murder) of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the High Court affirmed the conviction. Dissatisfied with the decision of the High Court, the appellant-accused appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a review of the conviction.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellant contended that there were significant contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses presented, asserting that they were not genuine eyewitnesses but rather individuals with vested interests and political enmity towards the appellant. They highlighted that crucial witnesses were not examined, and key evidence such as the alleged pistol and pellets recovered from the crime scene were not subjected to ballistic examination. It was emphasized that without conclusive ballistic evidence linking the appellant to the crime, the conviction was unjustified. Additionally, they contended that the trial court erred in convicting the appellant while acquitting the co-accused, stressing that both were implicated based on the same evidence. They cited legal precedent to support their argument and urged for the appellant's acquittal, asserting that there was a lack of substantial evidence to prove guilt.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the defendant contended that the appellant was rightfully convicted by both the Sessions Court and the High Court based on the incriminating evidence. They emphasized that the eyewitness testimony directly implicated the appellant in the shooting death of PW-1's mother, Dulli. Given the severity of the crime and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the appellant's conviction was deemed justified. The defendant contended that the High Court's decision to dismiss the appellant's criminal appeal was appropriate, and there was no justification for further interference in the case.
Observations of the Court:
The Supreme Court underscored the importance of obtaining a ballistic report and the examination of a ballistic expert, emphasizing their potential significance in cases involving gunshot injuries. While acknowledging that this requirement is not absolute, the Court highlighted its role, particularly when other aspects of the prosecution's case lack credibility. In instances where the evidence, including eyewitness testimony, exhibits inconsistencies or raises doubts, the absence of a ballistic report and expert examination can substantially undermine the prosecution's case. Therefore, while not mandatory in every scenario, such evidence becomes crucial in ensuring the reliability and strength of the prosecution's arguments.
In the present case, the Court identified significant shortcomings in the evidence provided by the eyewitnesses, casting serious doubts on its credibility. As a result, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. Following the principle that any uncertainty regarding the accused's involvement should favour the accused, the Court opted to grant the benefit of the doubt to the appellant. Moreover, the Court noted that the acquittal of a co-accused based on the same evidence further reinforced the argument for exonerating the accused. Thus, the Supreme Court's decision emphasized the necessity of rigorous scrutiny in criminal cases and the imperative of resolving doubts in favour of the accused, particularly when key elements of the prosecution's case are questionable.
The decision of the Court:
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of the accused and directed his release.
Case Title: Ram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Citation: 2024 Latest Caselaw 105 SC
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Mathur, AOR, Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chiranjeev Johri, Adv. Ms. Preeti, Adv.
Advocates for the Respondent: Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR, Mr. Samarth Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Gantavya Gulati, Adv.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
