Ashish @ Bobby vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 18987 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 922/2021 Ashish @ Bobby S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Karanpur, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan through PP
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Naman Mohnot &
                                Mr. Jaikishan Haniya
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Gaurav Singh, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA Order

14/12/2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned

Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that initially final

negative report was filed against the petitioner. Thereafter, one

application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. has been filed and the same

has been rejected and the application under Section 233(3) Cr.P.C.

filed by the petitioner has also been rejected. Thereafter, on the

application filed under Section 193 Cr.P.C., accused-petitioner has

been implicated in this case. Learned counsel stated that the

ballistic experts submitted a report in this case, was issued under

the seal & signature of one senior scientist Vijay Singh and one

additional director of the State Forensic Science Laboratory,

Rajasthan, therefore, any of them may be called on to prove that

ballistic expert report and to determine whether the cartridge

found from body of the deceased was fired from the pistol or not

which was recovered from the accused-petitioner. In support of

the contentions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he

(2 of 2) [CRLR-922/2021]

relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court

reported in AIR 2000 SC 1691.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently and

fervently opposed the bail application and stated that ballistic

expert report has already been accepted during the trial which is

is Exhibit -47 and no cross examination was made on behalf of the

petitioner at that time whereas petitioner has ample opportunity

to cross examine the witnesses. He further stated that it is the

duty of the prosecution to prove the report of ballistic expert, it is

not a duty of the petitioner and as per ballistic report (Exp.-47)

itself, it is clear that there is no ambiguity for which any of the

expert who prepared that report is required to explain that

ambiguity.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

particularly to the fact that whether fire arm was used by the

accused petitioner or not and whether cartridge found from the

body of the deceased made through the pistol or not which has

been recovered from the petitioner, it is the duty of the

prosecution and not a duty of the petitioner to prove the report of

ballistic expert and the above relied judgment passed by Hon'ble

the Apex Court is different, therefore, without expressing any

opinion on merit or demerit of the case, at this stage, I do not find

any illegality in the impugned order dated 27.09.2021 passed by

the learned trial Court.

Accordingly, the instant revision petition is dismissed. Since,

revision petition is dismissed, the stay petition is also dismissed.

(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J 23-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)