Evidence – Non-recovery of the weapon of crime – Nonobtaining of ballistic opinion and non-examination of ballistic expert – When fatal:
Held: Non-recovery of the weapon of crime by itself would not be fatal to the prosecution case – When there is such non-recovery, there would be no question of linking the empty cartridges and pellets seized during investigation with the weapon allegedly used in the crime – Obtaining of ballistic report and examination of the ballistic expert is not an inflexible rule – When there is direct eye witness account which is found to be credible, omission to obtain ballistic report and non-examination of ballistic expert may not be fatal to the prosecution case but if the evidence tendered including that of eye witnesses do not inspire confidence or suffer from glaring inconsistencies coupled with omission to examine material witnesses, the omission to seek ballistic opinion and examination of the ballistic expert may be fatal – In the present case, the evidence of the eyewitnesses suffer from serious lacunae and cannot be said to be credible – That apart, material witnesses were not examined – Thus, the evidence tendered on behalf of the prosecution cannot be said to be full proof so much so that non-recovery of the main material evidence i.e., weapon of offence, non-obtaining of ballistic opinion and non-examination of ballistic expert would be immaterial – Prosecution did not prove the accusation against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt – Also, on the same set of evidence, the trial court gave the benefit of doubt to the co-accused primarily on the ground that there was a grudge between the accused and PW-1 – Appellant given benefit of doubt – Conviction and sentence set aside – Order of the trial Court and the High Court quashed. [Paras 29, 30, 33 and 34]
Evidence – Same set of evidence – Conviction of one accused and acquital of the other – Impermissibility:
Held: When there is similar or identical evidence of eyewitnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same or similar role, the court cannot convict one accused and acquit the other – Any lingering doubt about the involvement of an accused in the crime he is accused of committing, must weigh on the mind of the court and in such a situation, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused – This is more so when the co-accused is acquitted by the trial court on the same set of evidence. [Paras 32, 33]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.