VINEET KUMAR CHAUHAN versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 727 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.P. NAOLEKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

~ 
> 
1 
VINEETKUMARCHAUHAN 
v. 
STATEOFU.P. 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
(P.P. NAOLEKAR AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-ss. 302 and 304 (Part !!)-Accused charged 
with murder caused by firearm-Acquittal by trial court, however, High 
Court convicted u/s 302-0n appeal, held: Accused caused fatal injury 
to deceased-Though deceased died of septicemia and toxemia owing 
to bed sores, basic cause of death was bullet injury-There was direct 
casual connection between hitting of bullet fired by accused to 
deceased and her death-Absence of evidence of Ballistic expert was 
not fatal -Requirement of mens rea was absent-There was no 
enmity- Occurrence took place without pre-meditation, in heat of 
passion upon sudden quarrel-At the most, accused had knowledge · 
that use of revolver was likely to cause death, thus, s. 299 clause (3) 
attracted- Offence committed by the accused would be 'culpable 
homicide not amounting to murder-Hence, conviction altered to s. 
304 (Part II)- Evidence. 
Evidence-Ballistic expert's evidence-Accused charged with 
murder caused by firearm-Failure to lead evidence of Ballistic expert 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
to prove charges irrespective of quality of direct evidence on record-
Does not vitiate trial-However, when direct evidence not available F 
examination of Ballistic expert essential. 
According to the prosecution case, PW 1 along with his wife 
and son-PW 2 were living opposite to the house of the appellant. 
On the fateful day, appellant and his servant went to the house of G 
PW 1 and sudden quarrel took place between the appellant and PW. 
2 over a minor issue. The appellant went to his house and took his 
father's revolver and opened indiscriminate firing towards PWl 's 
house from the door of his house. One of the bullets hit the wife of 
727 
H 
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A PW 1 in her jaw. PW-1 lodged an FIR. He took his wife to the hospital 
for treatment. PW 4-doctor found two injuries on the person of the 
deceased. She developed bed sores and ultimately died on the 10th 
day. PW-7-doctorwho conduct«l autopsy recovered a metallic bullet 
from her spinal cord which caused extensive damage in thoracic spine 
B and paralysis of half of her body. He opined that death was caused 
due to septicemia and toxemia owing to bed sores. The investigations 
were carried out. The appellant and his servant were charged u/s 
302 and 307 IPC. Prosecution examined witnesses. PW 1 and 2 were 
eye witnesses. PW 5 stated that the deceased had suffered paralysis 
c in both her legs due to bullet injury sustained in the spinal cord. Trial 
Court holding the evidence to be insufficient to warrant conviction, 
acquitted the accused. High Court upheld the acquittal of the servant, 
however convicted the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 
Appellant-accused contended that the Ballistic Report casts a 
D serious doubt that the distorted bullet allegedly recovered from the 
spot came out of the seized revolver; that it was also obligatory on 
the part of the prosecution to send the bullet allegedly recovered 
from the body of the deceased for being examined by the Ballistic 
Expert; that it was the prosecution case that the accused was firing 
E towards the house of the deceased without aiming at any person and 
the bullet hit the deceased accidentally when she was closing the door 
of the house; that even ifthe occurrence is admitted to have taken 
place in the manner alleged, the appellant cannot be held guilty for 
the commission of the offence punishable u/s 302; and that the 
F occurrence having taken place without pre-medication, in the heat 
of the passion upon a sudden quarrel, the appellant is entitled to the 
benefit of Exception 4 of the section 300 IPC. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be laid down as a general proposition that 
in every case where a firearm is allegedly used by an accused person, 
the prosecution must lead the evidence of a Ballistic Expert to prove 
the charge, irrespective of the quality of the direct evidence available 
on record, It needs little emphasis that where direct evidence is of 
H such an unimpeachable character, and the nature of injuries, 
VINEETKUMARCHAUHANv. STATE 
729 
disclosed by post-mortem notes is consistent with the direct evidence, A 
the examination of Ballistic Expert may not be regarded as essential. 
However, where direct evidence is not available or that there is some 
doubt as to whether the injuries 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.