Law with regard to evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession as succinctly laid down in Munna Kumar Upadhyay, (2012) 6 SCC 174, commended to be followed as locus classicus. Held, The observations of this Court in the case of Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab3:
………It hardly needs to be emphasised that in cases where injuries are caused by firearms, (1995) 3 SCC 367 the opinion of the ballistic expert is of a considerable importance where both the firearm and the crime cartridge are recovered during the investigation to connect an accused with the crime. Failure to produce the expert opinion before the trial court in such cases affects the creditworthiness of the prosecution case to a great extent.”
No doubt that this case has been recently distinguished by a three-Judges Bench of this Court in the case of Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh, relying on the earlier judgments of this Court in the cases of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab and State of Punjab v. Jugraj Singh.
However, it is to be noted that the case of Jugraj Singh (supra) was a case of direct evidence, where there was evidence of two eye-witnesses. The present case is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In view of the serious doubt with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would, in our opinion, be a glaring defect in the prosecution case. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the (case beyond reasonable doubt and, as such, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. Conviction reversed
[Pritinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2023) 7 SCC 727]
Case Comment: The case of Jugraj Singh (supra) was a case of direct evidence, where there was evidence of two eye-witnesses. The present case is a case based on circumstantial evidence. In view of the serious doubt with regard to the credibility of the witnesses on the issue of extra-judicial confession and last seen theory, the failure to examine Ballistic Expert would, be a glaring defect in the prosecution case being not a case beyond reasonable doubt
Subscribe to our updates now and be the first to know about the latest news and developments. Subscribe here: https://relegal.in/subscribe/