LexSTATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH versus MAST RAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
A
v.
MAST RAM
SEPTEMBER I 0, 2004
[B.N. AGRAWAL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.]
B
Penal Code, I 860:
Section 302-Conviction by Trial Court on the basis of the ballistic
report, post mortem report and evidence of eye witnesses-High Court
C
acquitting the accused-On appeal held, High Court/ell into grave error of
law and/acts leading to miscarriage of justice-Hence, order of High Court
set aside and order of Trial Court restored.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973:
Section 293-Document purporting to be report under hand of
Government scientific expert-Court to accept such document issued by
officers enumerated in sub-section(4) without examining the author of the
documents.
According to the prosecution, accused fired at and killed the
deceased. Prosecution case was based on testimony of eye-witnesses,
report of medical expert and report of ballistic expert. The Trial Court
conducted a test and found that the place where the deceased was standing
D
E
and hit by the gun shot was within firing range. Accordingly, Trial
Court convicted and sentenced the accused. However, High Court
F
acquitted him. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. While it is true that generally, the firing range of the
gun differs from gun to gun, the opinion of High Court that firing range
of DBML gun and SBML gun differs is based on no expert opinion and
same is based on conjectures and surmises. In the instant case both the
guns are of the same categories except the one used in the commission
of crime is Double Barrel and the one used during the test fire was
Single Barrel. Therefore, it cannot be said that the firing range from
269
G
H
270
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.
A
DBML gun differed from SBML gun and vice-versa. This finding of
High Court is fallacious and perverse. [272-H; 273-A, BJ
B
2. The High Court has completely over-looked the provision of Sub-
section (1) of Section 293 and arrived at a fallacious conclusion that a
junior scientific officer is not an officer enumerated under Suh-section (4)
of Section 293. Sub-section (4) of Section 293 envisages the Court to accept
the documents issued by any of the six officers enumerated therein as
valid evidence without examining author of the documents. [273-G, HJ
3. The finding of the High Court that failure of prosecution to send
C
the pellets, recovered from body of deceased, for examination by a
ballistic expert will draw inference against credibility of prosecution
story is utterly perverse. Law does not require that pellets recovered
from the body be sent to ballistic expert to determine as to whether the
pellets were {ired from the exhibited gun or not. On the contrary,
D
recovery of pellets from the body clearly establishes the prosecution
case that the deceased died of gun shot injuries. [274-B, q
4. The categorical testimony of eyewitnesses' account has not been
considered and discussed at all by the High Court. Their testimony was
thrown out at the threshold on the ground of animosity and relationship.
E
This is not the requirement of law. The only requirement of law is to
examine their testimony with caution. Relationship of witnesses is no -
ground to disbelieve their testimony, if otherwise, it inspires confidence.
The High Court also failed to discuss and consider testimony of
independent eyewitness. [276-D, A; 275-H; 276-EJ
F
5. The consistent ocular ~estimony of eyewitnesses corroborated by
the opinion of Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination
on the body of deceased and -ballistic expert report clearly established
the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubt. High Court fell into
grave error of law and facts, resulting in grave miscarriage of justice.
G
(277-G, HJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 267
of 1999.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.98 of the Himachal Pradesh
H
High Court in Cr!. A. No. 195 of 1997.
' .
STATE v. MAST RAM [SEMA, J.]
271
J.S. Attri and L.R. Rath for the Appellant.
A
A.V. Palli and Mrs. Rekha Palli for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEMA, J. : The sole respondent-accused was convicted by the learned
B
Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharmshala for an offence under
Section 302 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay
a fine of Rs.5000 and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment
for a period of siExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.