LexGURCHARAN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 585 GURCHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J. R. MunHOLKAR, JJ.) Orimi·1al Trial-Murder-Shooting with gun- Acquittal of possession af 'Unlicensed firearm-Effect on trial for murder--Ballistic expert-Failure to produce-If vitiates trial- Dutg of High Court to consider Points 'TUised in appeal. The two appellants G and S together with three others B, D and A were tried·for the muder of four pers~ns by shoo- ting them with guns. Two spent cartridges were recovered at the spot; G produced a gun on the very day o.f occurrence and D produced a gun one week after the occurrence. The cartridges and guns were sent for examination to the ballistic expert but neither he nor his report was produced before the Sessions Judge. The Sessions Judge convicted the appellants and B and D but acquitted A. The same Judge tried G under s.19(f) Arms Act for being in possession of the unlicensed gun which G had surrendered but acquitted him of the charge. On appl"al against the conviction for murder the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence of death passed against the appellants but acquitted Band D. The appellants con• tended (i) that in view of his acquittal in the s.19(f) Arms Act case, the allegation of the recovery of the gun from G in the murder case could not be accepted, (ii) that the failure to produce the ballistic expert and his report had introduced a serious infirmity in the pro~ecution case, and (iii) that the High Court had failed to deal with these and other points raised before it. Held, that the conviction of the appellants was not vitia- ted by any infirmities. The acquittal of G in s.l9(f) Arms Act case did not affect his conviction in the murder case. If the order of acquittal under s.19(f) had been pronounced before the judg- ment in the murder case, then in the latter case the prosecu· tinn could not contend that G was in illegal possession of the firearm. Though the two judgment were pronounced on the same day there was nothing to show that the judgment in the s.19(f) Arms Act c'lse was pronounced earlier. On the other hand there were indications that it was pronounced 196S YI August 1 I. 1161 •.uckraa Stn1A •• St,t1 •f P..,.b 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963) after the judgment in the murder case. The evidence clearly established that G had produced the gun. Pritam Singh v. Stat• of Punjab, A.I.R. 1956 S. C. 415, referred to. There is no inflexible rule that in every case when a person is charged with murder caused by a firearm, the pro- secution can succeed only by examining an expert to prove that the injuries could be caused by the weapon alleged to have been used. Where the direct evidence is not satisfactory or disinterested or where the injuries arc alleged to have been caused with a gun and they prima facie appear to have been inflicted by a rifle, the apparent inconsistency can be cured or the oral evidence can be corroborated by the evider.ce of a ballistic expert. In the present case there was no necessity to examine-an expert. Admittedly, G had fired twice and there was nothing to show that the injuuries could not have been caused by the Eun which was in his hands. D had kept the gun with him for a week before surrendering it and it was unlikely that D had not removed traces of its use. · The report of the ballistic examiner, which was sent for by the Supreme Court, did not help the defence and no inference could be drawn against the prosecution from its failure to produce it at the trial, Mohintkr Singh v. The State, [1950] S.C.R. 821, referred to. In dealing with confirmation cases the High Court should consider the evidence carefully .and record its conclusions clearly after dealing with all the points urged before it by the defence. In all criminal appeals before it the Supreme Conrt is reluctant to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the High Court. In the present case some of the reasons given by the High Court were erroneou.s and some of the argu- ments urged before it were not duly considered and the Sup- t·eme Court had therefore to go into the evidence. CRIMIIUL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 87 of 1962. Appeal by special. leave from the judgment a.nd order dated February 21, 1962, of the Punjab High Court in Cr. A. No. 1231 of 1961 and Murder Reference No. 98 of 1961. ,-- -. - 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.