CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT Nazar Singh State of Haryana CORAM: Present: GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. 1. Nazar Singh Sessions Judge, having committed offence the Arms Act Offence Under Section 302 IPC Under Section 25 of the Arms Act 2. The matter arises out of FIR No. Station Matla Act at the instance of (O&M) ( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES AT CHANDIGARH CRA Date of Decision: Singh Versus Haryana HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Mr. B.S.Rana, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Nayandeep Rana, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. Nazar Singh assails judgment dated 21.02.2004 Sessions Judge, Panipat, wherein the trial Court while holding him having committed offences under Section the Arms Act, sentenced him as under: Offence Imprisonment Under Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment Under Section 5 of the Arms Act RI for 3 years matter arises out of FIR No.144 dated 02.07.2002 registered at Police Station Matlaudha, under Sections 302/120 at the instance of Mukhtiar Singh. FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) ate of Decision: 09.04.2025 … Appellant ... Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI B.S.Rana, Senior Advocate, with , Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana. 21.02.2004 passed by learned Additional wherein the trial Court while holding him guilty of under Section 302 IPC and under Section 25 of Fine In default Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- RI for 6 months Rs.2000/- RI for one month 144 dated 02.07.2002 registered at Police , under Sections 302/120-B IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms . The translated gist of Mukhtiar Additional guilty of 25 of RI for one month 144 dated 02.07.2002 registered at Police B IPC and 25/54/59 of the Arms Mukhtiar VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) Singh’s statement under: “I am resident of brothers and own 27 killas of land. The younger to him is Lakhvinder Singh and I am the youngest. All of us are married. My brother Lakhvinder Singh was married to daughter of Alla Singh of village since the last about 10 ye amongst all three of us. However, Lakhvinder Singh used to insist upon my father to get his share of land transferred in his name, but my father used tell him that after his death, the land would be tran all the three brothers, which did not go well with Lakhvinder Singh and used to be a dispute between Lakhvinder Singh and my father. brother frequentl Lakhvinder Singh transferred in his name. respect of land Surjit Singh Dhariwal one of our relatives Raj Singh to Tehsil office at Ma reached near Tehsil office at about 12.30 PM. My father Karnail Singh was going a little ahead of us and Market brother stack of wheat bags and at my father hitting him on the left side of his waist fell down. We rushed towards my father to attend to the fire alongwith his pistol. Nazar Singh has murdered my father by conniving with Lakhvinder Singh. Angrej Singh and Raj Singh occurrence. near the dead body me near the gate of grain market. I is correct. Sd/ (O&M) ( 2 ) statement (Ex.PE) on the basis of which FIR was lodged I am resident of village Uriana Kalan and am an agriculturist. brothers and own 27 killas of land. The younger to him is Lakhvinder Singh and I am the youngest. All of us are married. My brother Lakhvinder Singh was married to daughter of Alla Singh of village Thal, P.S.Safidon and has been residing separately from us since the last about 10 years. My father had distributed the land equally amongst all three of us. However, Lakhvinder Singh used to insist upon my father to get his share of land transferred in his name, but my father used tell him that after his death, the land would be tran all the three brothers, which did not go well with Lakhvinder Singh and used to be a dispute between Lakhvinder Singh and my father. brother-in-law (sala) of Lakhvinder Singh frequently and he also used to compel my father to get the share of Lakhvinder Singh transferred in his name. respect of land falling to his share, had entered into an agreement to sell Surjit Singh Dhariwal. Today, I alongwith one of our relatives Raj Singh and my father Karnail Singh w Tehsil office at Matlaudha for getting the sale deed registered. We reached near Tehsil office at about 12.30 PM. My father Karnail Singh was ng a little ahead of us and when he turned Market Matlaudha, towards the Tehsil office, Ma brother-in-law (sala) of my brother, suddenly stack of wheat bags and ran towards my father and took out a pistol at my father hitting him on the left side of his waist fell down. We rushed towards my father to attend to the fire-arm injury. Nazar Singh ran away from t alongwith his pistol. Nazar Singh has murdered my father by conniving with Lakhvinder Singh. Angrej Singh and Raj Singh occurrence. After leaving my father-in near the dead body, when I was proceedings towards police station you met me near the gate of grain market. I have is correct. Sd/- Mukhtiar Singh.” on the basis of which FIR was lodged reads village Uriana Kalan and am an agriculturist. We are three brothers and own 27 killas of land. The eldest of all is Richpal Singh and younger to him is Lakhvinder Singh and I am the youngest. All of us are married. My brother Lakhvinder Singh was married to daughter of Alla Thal, P.S.Safidon and has been residing separately from us My father had distributed the land equally amongst all three of us. However, Lakhvinder Singh used to insist upon my father to get his share of land transferred in his name, but my father used tell him that after his death, the land would be transferred equally amongst all the three brothers, which did not go well with Lakhvinder Singh and there used to be a dispute between Lakhvinder Singh and my father. Nazar Singh, of Lakhvinder Singh used to come to our village y and he also used to compel my father to get the share of Lakhvinder Singh transferred in his name. My brother Richpal Singh, had entered into an agreement to sell with . Today, I alongwith my father-in-law Angrej Singh, my father Karnail Singh was proceeding for getting the sale deed registered. We reached near Tehsil office at about 12.30 PM. My father Karnail Singh was when he turned from Shop No.62, Grain towards the Tehsil office, Matlaudha, Nazar Singh, ) of my brother, suddenly appeared from the back of ran towards my father and took out a pistol and shot at my father hitting him on the left side of his waist upon which my father fell down. We rushed towards my father to attend to him, but he succumbed injury. Nazar Singh ran away from the spot towards forest alongwith his pistol. Nazar Singh has murdered my father by conniving with Lakhvinder Singh. Angrej Singh and Raj Singh have witnessed the in-law Angrej Singh and Raj Singh was proceedings towards police station you met have got my statement recorded, which reads as We are three Singh and younger to him is Lakhvinder Singh and I am the youngest. All of us are married. My brother Lakhvinder Singh was married to daughter of Alla Thal, P.S.Safidon and has been residing separately from us My father had distributed the land equally amongst all three of us. However, Lakhvinder Singh used to insist upon my father to get his share of land transferred in his name, but my father used to sferred equally amongst there Nazar Singh, used to come to our village y and he also used to compel my father to get the share of in with law Angrej Singh, proceeding for getting the sale deed registered. We reached near Tehsil office at about 12.30 PM. My father Karnail Singh was from Shop No.62, Grain Nazar Singh, from the back of and shot upon which my father him, but he succumbed he spot towards forest alongwith his pistol. Nazar Singh has murdered my father by conniving with have witnessed the law Angrej Singh and Raj Singh was proceedings towards police station you met got my statement recorded, which VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) 3. After the aforesaid statement was recorded by PW was sent to the police station for lodging formal FIR. PW proceeded to the spot and conducted was lifted from the spot and witnesses were recorded of Karnail Singh was sent for post 4. Accused Nazar Singh was arrested on Nazar Singh, a pistol cartridge w memo Ex.PK. 5. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan accused Nazar Singh and Lakhvinder Singh learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat Court of Sessions Sessions Judge, Panipat framed charges against both the accused 30.10.2002 Nazar Singh was additionally charged for offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. 6. The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The gist of their testimonies is PW-1 Jai Bhagwan, Reader to District Magistrate, Panipat, proved the sanction order ( the Arms Act] while identifying the signatures of Mr. M.R.Anand, IAS, District Magistrate, Panipat (O&M) ( 3 ) After the aforesaid statement was recorded by PW was sent to the police station for lodging formal FIR. PW to the spot and conducted inquest proceedings. was lifted from the spot and was prepared into a parcel. witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan was also prepared. The dead body of Karnail Singh was sent for post-mortem examination. Accused Nazar Singh was arrested on 03.07.2002 Singh, a pistol .315 bore alongwith 4 live cartridges were recovered, which were taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex.PK. Co-accused Lakhvinder Singh was arrested on Upon conclusion of investigation, challan accused Nazar Singh and Lakhvinder Singh Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat Court of Sessions vide order dated 25.09.2002 Sessions Judge, Panipat framed charges against both the accused 30.10.2002 for offence punishable under Section Nazar Singh was additionally charged for offence under Section 25 of the The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as The gist of their testimonies is being briefly referred to herein Jai Bhagwan, Reader to District Magistrate, Panipat, proved the sanction order (Ex.PA) [for prosecuting accused Nazar Singh under the Arms Act] while identifying the signatures of Mr. M.R.Anand, IAS, District Magistrate, Panipat. After the aforesaid statement was recorded by PW-11 Rattan Singh, the same was sent to the police station for lodging formal FIR. PW-11 Rattan Singh inquest proceedings. Blood stained soil was prepared into a parcel. Statements Rough site plan was also prepared. The dead body mortem examination. 03.07.2002. Upon search of accused .315 bore alongwith 4 live cartridges and 1 empty taken into possession vide recovery accused Lakhvinder Singh was arrested on 07.07.2002. Upon conclusion of investigation, challan was presented against both the accused Nazar Singh and Lakhvinder Singh on 04.09.2002 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Panipat, who committed the case to the 25.09.2002 where the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat framed charges against both the accused punishable under Section 120-B/302 IPC. Accused Nazar Singh was additionally charged for offence under Section 25 of the The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 13 PWs being briefly referred to herein under:- Jai Bhagwan, Reader to District Magistrate, Panipat, proved the [for prosecuting accused Nazar Singh under the Arms Act] while identifying the signatures of Mr. M.R.Anand, 11 Rattan Singh, the same 11 Rattan Singh Blood stained soil of Rough site plan was also prepared. The dead body search of accused and 1 empty taken into possession vide recovery both the in the Court of the case to the the learned Additional on B/302 IPC. Accused Nazar Singh was additionally charged for offence under Section 25 of the PWs. Jai Bhagwan, Reader to District Magistrate, Panipat, proved the [for prosecuting accused Nazar Singh under the Arms Act] while identifying the signatures of Mr. M.R.Anand, VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) PW-2 Constable Krishan Kumar evidence his affidavit Ex. MHC Ram Kumar alon which he parcels remained in PW-3 HC Ram Kumar, affidavit Ex. posted as MHC, P.S. Singh had and deposited cartridge and 4 li 17.07.2002, Kumar accordingly remained in his possess PW-4 Constable Jagbir Singh place of occurrence and had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD. PW-5 Mukhtiar the witness stated that he and his brothers were having cordial relations and that his brother Lakhvinder Singh has never demanded any sepa from else. He categorically his father. The witness was declared hostile and with the permission of the Court, the Public Prosecuto the witness, wherein the witness was confronted with various documents prepared during the course of investigation. PW-6 Angrej Singh, who is father cited as an eye all and was declared hostile. (O&M) ( 4 ) Constable Krishan Kumar, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PB, wherein he deposed that MHC Ram Kumar had handed over to him alongwith sample seal for depositing the same in the which he accordingly deposited the same day parcels remained in his possession, the same were not tampered with HC Ram Kumar, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PC, wherein he deposed that posted as MHC, P.S. Matlaudha and that on Singh had deposited with him parcels containing blood stained earth and clothes of the deceased and that on 03.07.2002 deposited parcels containing pistol cartridge and 4 live cartridges. 17.07.2002, all the parcels were handed over to Constable Kumar for depositing the same in the accordingly deposited the same day remained in his possession, the same w Constable Jagbir Singh stated that on place of occurrence and had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD. Mukhtiar Singh, who is the complainant in the instant case, while in the witness-box did not support the case of prosecution at all. He stated that he and his brothers were having cordial relations and that his brother Lakhvinder Singh has never demanded any sepa from my father nor Nazar Singh had threatened his father or anybody else. He categorically stated that Nazar Singh did not fire any shot at his father. The witness was declared hostile and with the permission of the Court, the Public Prosecuto the witness, wherein the witness was confronted with various documents prepared during the course of investigation. Angrej Singh, who is father-in-law of the complainant and ha cited as an eye-witness also did not support the case of prosecution at all and was declared hostile. who is a formal witness, tendered into , wherein he deposed that on 17.07.2002, had handed over to him five sealed parcels for depositing the same in the FSL, Madhuban the same day and that as long as the his possession, the same were not tampered with who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his he deposed that on 02.07.2002, he was and that on the same day, SI Rattan parcels containing blood stained earth and that on 03.07.2002, SI Rattan Singh parcels containing pistol .315 bore alongwith one empty He further deposed that on handed over to Constable Krishan for depositing the same in the FSL, Madhuban, which were deposited the same day and that as long as the same ion, the same were not tampered with. stated that on 24.07.2002, he had visited the place of occurrence and had prepared scaled site plan Ex.PD. Singh, who is the complainant in the instant case, while in box did not support the case of prosecution at all. He stated that he and his brothers were having cordial relations and that his brother Lakhvinder Singh has never demanded any separate share nor Nazar Singh had threatened his father or anybody stated that Nazar Singh did not fire any shot at his father. The witness was declared hostile and with the permission of the Court, the Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine the witness, wherein the witness was confronted with various documents prepared during the course of investigation. law of the complainant and had been did not support the case of prosecution at who is a formal witness, tendered into 17.07.2002, five sealed parcels FSL, Madhuban, the his possession, the same were not tampered with. who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his he was the same day, SI Rattan parcels containing blood stained earth , SI Rattan Singh alongwith one empty He further deposed that on Krishan ere same 24.07.2002, he had visited the Singh, who is the complainant in the instant case, while in box did not support the case of prosecution at all. He stated that he and his brothers were having cordial relations and that rate share nor Nazar Singh had threatened his father or anybody stated that Nazar Singh did not fire any shot at his father. The witness was declared hostile and with the permission examine the witness, wherein the witness was confronted with various been did not support the case of prosecution at VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) PW-7 Raj Singh did not say anything to support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile and was permitted to be cross the prosecution. PW-8 Richpal Singh against any of the accused and was, thus, declared hostile. PW-9 Mohinder Singh, photographer, stated that he had taken photographs of the place of occurrence and of the dead body and proved the same as Ex.P1 to P10 PW-10 Dr. who examination on the dead body of proved the post injuries found on the dead body. the account of the injuries to the vital organs i.e. heart and lungs. categorically stated that a body and identified the dead body PW-11 SI Rattan Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case, stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him in the matter. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the complainant on He proved various documents/memos prepared during the course of investigation. PW-12 Constable Dharambir, evidence his affidavit Ex. he had delivered the special report other senior officers PW-13 ASI Krishan Chander stated that on Police Station Ma (O&M) ( 5 ) Raj Singh, who was also cited as an eye did not say anything to support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile and was permitted to be cross the prosecution. Richpal Singh, brother of the complainant against any of the accused and was, thus, declared hostile. Mohinder Singh, photographer, stated that he had taken photographs of the place of occurrence and of the dead body and proved the same as Ex.P1 to P10 and negatives as Ex.P11 to P13. Y.P.Singhmar, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Panipat, who alongwith Dr. Jai Parkash examination on the dead body of proved the post-mortem report as Ex.P injuries found on the dead body. He stated that as per their opinion the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage particularly on account of the injuries to the vital organs i.e. heart and lungs. categorically stated that a foreign metallic body was found in the body and identified the bullet, which had been removed from the dead body, as Ex.P18. SI Rattan Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case, stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him in the matter. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the complainant on 02.07.2002 and had conducted inquest proceedi He proved various documents/memos prepared during the course of investigation. Constable Dharambir, who is a formal witness, tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.PP, wherein he deposed that had delivered the special report other senior officers. ASI Krishan Chander stated that on Police Station Matlaudha and was associated with the investigation of , who was also cited as an eye-witness by the prosecution, did not say anything to support the case of prosecution and was declared hostile and was permitted to be cross-examined on behalf of , brother of the complainant, also did not say a word against any of the accused and was, thus, declared hostile. Mohinder Singh, photographer, stated that he had taken photographs of the place of occurrence and of the dead body and proved the same as Ex.P11 to P13. Y.P.Singhmar, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Panipat, alongwith Dr. Jai Parkash had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Karnail Singh on 02.07.200 mortem report as Ex.PK, wherein he described the He stated that as per their opinion shock and haemorrhage particularly on account of the injuries to the vital organs i.e. heart and lungs. He foreign metallic body was found in the , which had been removed from the SI Rattan Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case, stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him in the matter. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the 02.07.2002 and had conducted inquest proceedings. He proved various documents/memos prepared during the course of who is a formal witness, tendered into , wherein he deposed that on 02.07.2002, had delivered the special reports to the Illaqa Magistrate and to ASI Krishan Chander stated that on 03.07.2002, he was posted at as associated with the investigation of witness by the prosecution, did not say anything to support the case of prosecution and was examined on behalf of , also did not say a word Mohinder Singh, photographer, stated that he had taken photographs of the place of occurrence and of the dead body and proved the same Y.P.Singhmar, Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Panipat, mortem .07.2002, , wherein he described the He stated that as per their opinion shock and haemorrhage particularly on He foreign metallic body was found in the , which had been removed from the SI Rattan Singh, who is the Investigating Officer of the present case, stated with regard to the investigation conducted by him in the matter. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the ngs. He proved various documents/memos prepared during the course of who is a formal witness, tendered into on 02.07.2002, s to the Illaqa Magistrate and to 03.07.2002, he was posted at as associated with the investigation of VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) the case alongwith Nazar Singh and as regards recovery of a pistol a from him. 7. The prosecution also tendered into evidence reports of FSL as Ex.PS, Ex.PT and Ex.PT/1. 8. Upon closure of the Singh and Lakhvinder Singh wherein they implication. defence. 9. The learned trial Court, upon held that while the prosecution had failed to establish its case against Lakhvinder Singh, but found accused Nazar Singh guilty Section 302 IPC and Karnail Singh and 10. Learned counsel for the submitted that since there is no substantive evidence to support the allegations, as none the alleged eye Angrej Singh and PW of the deceased, judgment was unsustainable. 11. Opposing the case where the accused/appellant had been able to win ov (O&M) ( 6 ) the case alongwith SI Rattan Singh. He stated with regard to arrest of Nazar Singh and as regards recovery of a pistol a from him. The prosecution also tendered into evidence reports of FSL as Ex.PS, Ex.PT and Ex.PT/1. Upon closure of the prosecution evidence, statement Singh and Lakhvinder Singh were recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the entire case of prosecution implication. The accused, however, did not lead any evide The learned trial Court, upon marshalling the while the prosecution had failed to establish its case against Lakhvinder Singh, but found accused Nazar Singh guilty Section 302 IPC and under Section 25 of the Arms Act for causing murder of Karnail Singh and accordingly sentenced him Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and that since there is no substantive evidence to support the allegations, as none the alleged eye-witnesses i.e. PW-5 Mukhtiar Singh (complainant), PW Angrej Singh and PW-7 Raj Singh or even PW of the deceased, had supported the case of prosecution, the impugned judgment was unsustainable. Opposing the appeal, learned State counsel submitted that case where the accused/appellant had been able to win ov SI Rattan Singh. He stated with regard to arrest of Nazar Singh and as regards recovery of a pistol alongwith cartridges The prosecution also tendered into evidence reports of FSL as Ex.PS, Ex.PT prosecution evidence, statements of both accused Nazar recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., of prosecution and pleaded false The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in their marshalling the evidence brought on record, while the prosecution had failed to establish its case against Lakhvinder Singh, but found accused Nazar Singh guilty for offences under Section 25 of the Arms Act for causing murder of him vide impugned judgment. while assailing the impugned judgment, sely been implicated in the present case and that since there is no substantive evidence to support the allegations, as none 5 Mukhtiar Singh (complainant), PW or even PW-8 Richpal Singh, another son had supported the case of prosecution, the impugned appeal, learned State counsel submitted that apparently it is a case where the accused/appellant had been able to win over the witnesses and SI Rattan Singh. He stated with regard to arrest of longwith cartridges The prosecution also tendered into evidence reports of FSL as Ex.PS, Ex.PT Nazar recorded in terms of Section 313 Cr.P.C., false their brought on record, while the prosecution had failed to establish its case against under Section 25 of the Arms Act for causing murder of impugned judgment, sely been implicated in the present case and that of 5 Mukhtiar Singh (complainant), PW-6 Singh, another son had supported the case of prosecution, the impugned apparently it is a er the witnesses and VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) that in any case since the factum of recovery of a pistol from the accused stands duly established and the repo that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from the recovered pistol, the complicity of the appellant is clearly eviden the trial Court did not warrant any interference. 12. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also 13. Since it is a case of homicidal death, wherein alleged to have been fired prosecution in this regard needs to be examined at the outset. of Karnail Singh (deceased) had been subjected to post The prosecution has examined PW Jai Parkash Karnail Singh on mortem report as Ex.P body as under “1. A lacerated wound 1.5 cm left to mid line probing the wound, a track was formed transversely in posterior anterio direction upto 2 around the wound extending anteriorl ventrical and left atrium were injured. subcutaneously fracturing 2 foreign body was removed, sealed in a bottle and was handed over to the police. Left thoracic cavity was full of dark fluid blood. Both sides of heart were and injured as described. (O&M) ( 7 ) that in any case since the factum of recovery of a pistol from the accused stands duly established and the report of FSL particularly as regards opinion that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from the recovered pistol, omplicity of the appellant is clearly eviden the trial Court did not warrant any interference. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with the assistance of learned counsel have also perused the record of the case. it is a case of homicidal death, wherein alleged to have been fired at from a pistol, the medical evidence led by the prosecution in this regard needs to be examined at the outset. of Karnail Singh (deceased) had been subjected to post The prosecution has examined PW-10 Dr. Y.P.Singhmar Jai Parkash had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Karnail Singh on 02.07.2002. PW-10 Dr. mortem report as Ex.PK, wherein he described the injuries found on the dead as under: A lacerated wound of size 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm with inverted margins on back of chest, 1.5 cm left to mid line at level of 4th thoracic probing the wound, a track was formed transversely in posterior anterio direction upto 2nd rib near its sterna lend. In between, there was around the wound extending anteriorly. There was a tear in pericardium left ventrical and left atrium were ruptured and upper portion of left lung was also injured. Pleura was torn on left side. A metallic foreign body was subcutaneously fracturing 2nd thoracic rib left side near foreign body was removed, sealed in a bottle and was handed over to the police. Left thoracic cavity was full of dark fluid blood. Both sides of heart were and injured as described.” that in any case since the factum of recovery of a pistol from the accused t of FSL particularly as regards opinion that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from the recovered pistol, omplicity of the appellant is clearly evident and as such, the findings of the trial Court did not warrant any interference. We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with perused the record of the case. it is a case of homicidal death, wherein Karnail Singh (deceased) wa from a pistol, the medical evidence led by the prosecution in this regard needs to be examined at the outset. The dead body of Karnail Singh (deceased) had been subjected to post-mortem examination. Y.P.Singhmar, who alongwith Dr. mortem examination on the dead body of Dr. Y.P.Singhmar proved the post , wherein he described the injuries found on the dead of size 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm with inverted margins on back of chest, thoracic vertebra. Wound was blackened on probing the wound, a track was formed transversely in posterior anterio direction . In between, there was hematoma posteriorly y. There was a tear in pericardium left and upper portion of left lung was also was torn on left side. A metallic foreign body was embedded thoracic rib left side near its medial end. Metallic foreign body was removed, sealed in a bottle and was handed over to the police. Left thoracic cavity was full of dark fluid blood. Both sides of heart were empty that in any case since the factum of recovery of a pistol from the accused t of FSL particularly as regards opinion that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from the recovered pistol, and as such, the findings of We have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court and with was from a pistol, the medical evidence led by the he dead body mortem examination. Dr. mortem examination on the dead body of proved the post- , wherein he described the injuries found on the dead of size 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm with inverted margins on back of chest, was blackened on probing the wound, a track was formed transversely in posterior anterio direction posteriorly y. There was a tear in pericardium left and upper portion of left lung was also embedded its medial end. Metallic foreign body was removed, sealed in a bottle and was handed over to the police. empty VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) 14. PW-10 further stated that haemorrhage particularly on account of injuries to vital organs i.e. heart and lungs. A perusal of the description of injuries shows that a wound with inverted margins was found on the back of chest, which upon dissection metallic foreign body was found to have been embedded in the rib, which had been removed. When PW that it was the same bullet which he had removed from the dead body. The witness was briefly cross substantial could be elicited during the course of his cross to either doubt 15. From the aforesaid statement cause of death was on account of fire would go a long way to substantiate the allegations, but the same more or less is in the nature of a corroborative piece of evidence and the Courts would look for substantive evidence. 16. Although it is the case of p been witnessed not just by the complainant (PW by PW-6 Angrej Singh and PW while in the witness stated a word against the accused as regards any quarrel or them or that the accused had fired at the deceased. FSL would suggest that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from the pistol rec base conviction solely on the basis of an expert’s opinion. (O&M) ( 8 ) further stated that in their opinion haemorrhage particularly on account of injuries to vital organs i.e. heart and lungs. A perusal of the description of injuries shows that a wound with inverted margins was found on the back of chest, which upon dissection, a track was formed transversely in the body. Further, a metallic foreign body was found to have been embedded in the rib, which had been removed. When PW-10 was shown the metallic the same bullet which he had removed from the dead body. The was briefly cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be elicited during the course of his cross to either doubt his veracity or his opinion. From the aforesaid statement and the post-mortem report, it is evident that the cause of death was on account of fire-arm shot. While the medical opinion would go a long way to substantiate the allegations, but the same more or less is in the nature of a corroborative piece of evidence and the Courts would look for substantive evidence. it is the case of prosecution that the occurrence in question had been witnessed not just by the complainant (PW 6 Angrej Singh and PW-7 Raj Singh while in the witness-box, supported the case of prosecution. stated a word against the accused as regards any quarrel or them or that the accused had fired at the deceased. FSL would suggest that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from recovered from the accused, but it is well settled that base conviction solely on the basis of an expert’s opinion. in their opinion the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage particularly on account of injuries to vital organs i.e. heart and lungs. A perusal of the description of injuries shows that a wound with inverted margins was found on the back of chest, which was blackened and , a track was formed transversely in the body. Further, a metallic foreign body was found to have been embedded in the rib, which had 10 was shown the metallic foreign body, he stated the same bullet which he had removed from the dead body. The examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing substantial could be elicited during the course of his cross-examination so as mortem report, it is evident that the arm shot. While the medical opinion would go a long way to substantiate the allegations, but the same more or less is in the nature of a corroborative piece of evidence and the Courts would rosecution that the occurrence in question had been witnessed not just by the complainant (PW-5 Mukhtiar Singh), but also 7 Raj Singh, but none of the said witnesses supported the case of prosecution. None of them stated a word against the accused as regards any quarrel or enmity amongst them or that the accused had fired at the deceased. Although the report of the FSL would suggest that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from overed from the accused, but it is well settled that it is not safe to base conviction solely on the basis of an expert’s opinion. shock and haemorrhage particularly on account of injuries to vital organs i.e. heart and lungs. A perusal of the description of injuries shows that a wound with was blackened and , a track was formed transversely in the body. Further, a metallic foreign body was found to have been embedded in the rib, which had body, he stated the same bullet which he had removed from the dead body. The examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing examination so as mortem report, it is evident that the arm shot. While the medical opinion would go a long way to substantiate the allegations, but the same more or less is in the nature of a corroborative piece of evidence and the Courts would rosecution that the occurrence in question had 5 Mukhtiar Singh), but also none of the said witnesses, None of them enmity amongst Although the report of the FSL would suggest that the recovered empty cartridge had been fired from it is not safe to VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) 17. Hon’ble Supreme Court in of Punjab, while referring to earlier precedent of expert’s opinion held as under: “It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in v. State of U. P., AIR 1957 Supreme Court 381 handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again Court 1728 because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 Supreme Cou pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is co evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in 1967 Supreme Court 1326 would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circum 18. Hon’ble the Apex Court in Abdulmajid Baloch Vs. State of Gujarat convicted by trial Court mainly on the basis of recovery of weapon and on the basis of report of Ballistic Ex conviction while holding as under: (O&M) ( 9 ) Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1977(2) SCC 210 Magan Bihari Lal , while referring to earlier precedent of expert’s opinion held as under: “It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in v. State of U. P., AIR 1957 Supreme Court 381 handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Court again pointed out in Ishwari Prasad v. Md. Isa, AIR 1963 Supreme Court 1728 that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 Supreme Cou pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider whether it is corroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in 1967 Supreme Court 1326 and if uttered would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circum Hon’ble the Apex Court in 2011(6) RCR (Criminal) 396 Abdulwahab Abdulmajid Baloch Vs. State of Gujarat convicted by trial Court mainly on the basis of recovery of weapon and on the basis of report of Ballistic Expert, extended benefit of doubt and set aside the conviction while holding as under: 1977(2) SCC 210 Magan Bihari Lal Vs. The State , while referring to earlier precedents as regards evidentiary value “It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is a profusion of precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it has almost become a rule of law. It was held by this Court in Ram Chandra v. State of U. P., AIR 1957 Supreme Court 381 that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Ishwari Prasad v. Md. Isa, AIR 1963 Supreme that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 529 where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider rroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of expert opinion in regard to handwriting in Fakhruddin v. State of M. P. AIR and if uttered a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to see whether it is corroborated by other evidence, direct or circumstantial.” 2011(6) RCR (Criminal) 396 Abdulwahab Abdulmajid Baloch Vs. State of Gujarat wherein the accused had been convicted by trial Court mainly on the basis of recovery of weapon and on the pert, extended benefit of doubt and set aside the s. The State s as regards evidentiary value “It is now well settled that expert opinion must always be received with great caution and perhaps none so with more caution than the opinion of a precedential authority which holds that it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without substantial corroboration. This rule has been universally acted upon and it Ram Chandra that it is unsafe to treat expert handwriting opinion as sufficient basis for conviction, but it may be relied upon when supported by other items of internal and external evidence. This Ishwari Prasad v. Md. Isa, AIR 1963 Supreme that expert evidence of handwriting can never be conclusive because it is, after all, opinion evidence, and this view was reiterated in where it was pointed out by this Court that expert's evidence as to handwriting being opinion evidence can rarely, if ever, take the place of substantive evidence and before acting on such evidence, it would be desirable to consider rroborated either by clear direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. This Court had again occasion to consider the evidentiary value of Fakhruddin v. State of M. P. AIR a note of caution pointing out that it would be risky to found a conviction solely on the evidence of a handwriting expert and before acting upon such evidence, the court must always try to 2011(6) RCR (Criminal) 396 Abdulwahab wherein the accused had been convicted by trial Court mainly on the basis of recovery of weapon and on the pert, extended benefit of doubt and set aside the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) “24. Be that as it may, we feel that only because the recovery of a weapon was made and the Expert opined that the bullet found in the body of the deceased was fired from premise on which a judgment of conviction under Section 302 could be recorded. There was no direct evidence. Accused, as noticed hereinbefore, was charged not only under Section 302 read with Section Penal Code but also under Section 302 read with Section 120B thereof. The murder of the deceased was said to have been committed by all the accused persons upon hatching a conspiracy. This charge has not been proved. The learned trial judg nine months, the weapon might have changed in many hands. In absence of any other evidence connecting the accused with commission of crime of murder of the deceased, in our opinion, it is not possibl appellant on the basis of such slander evidence could have been found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.” 19. Hon’ble Supreme Court in (Government of NCT of Delhi) prosecution had relied upon report of Ballistic expert, observed regarding the nature of report of Ballistic expert as under: “18. The report of the Ballistic Expert is obviously a sc nature of an opinion. It is required to use this evidence along with the other substantive piece of evidence available. The report is inconclusive with respect to the firearm belonging to the appellant being used for committing the offence.” 20. The instant case evidence in support of its case, but the prosecution in the shape of eye (complainant), PW contradiction to the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances, even if the report of the ballistic expert is in favour of the prosecution, still in the (O&M) ( 10 ) Be that as it may, we feel that only because the recovery of a weapon was made and the Expert opined that the bullet found in the body of the deceased was fired from one of the weapons seized, by itself cannot be the sole premise on which a judgment of conviction under Section 302 could be recorded. There was no direct evidence. Accused, as noticed hereinbefore, was charged not only under Section 302 read with Section Penal Code but also under Section 302 read with Section 120B thereof. The murder of the deceased was said to have been committed by all the accused persons upon hatching a conspiracy. This charge has not been proved. The learned trial judge itself opined that the recovery having been made after nine months, the weapon might have changed in many hands. In absence of any other evidence connecting the accused with commission of crime of murder of the deceased, in our opinion, it is not possibl appellant on the basis of such slander evidence could have been found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.” Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2022(8) SCC 536, Ravi Sharma (Government of NCT of Delhi), while setting aside conviction wherein the prosecution had relied upon report of Ballistic expert, observed regarding the nature of report of Ballistic expert as under: The report of the Ballistic Expert is obviously a sc nature of an opinion. It is required to use this evidence along with the other substantive piece of evidence available. The report is inconclusive with respect to the firearm belonging to the appellant being used for committing offence.” The instant case is not just a case that the prosecution has been unable to lead evidence in support of its case, but rather is a case where the evidence led by the prosecution in the shape of eye-witnesses i.e. PW (complainant), PW-6 Angrej Singh and PW contradiction to the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances, even if the report of the ballistic expert is in favour of the prosecution, still in the Be that as it may, we feel that only because the recovery of a weapon was made and the Expert opined that the bullet found in the body of the deceased one of the weapons seized, by itself cannot be the sole premise on which a judgment of conviction under Section 302 could be recorded. There was no direct evidence. Accused, as noticed hereinbefore, was charged not only under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code but also under Section 302 read with Section 120B thereof. The murder of the deceased was said to have been committed by all the accused persons upon hatching a conspiracy. This charge has not been proved. The e itself opined that the recovery having been made after nine months, the weapon might have changed in many hands. In absence of any other evidence connecting the accused with commission of crime of murder of the deceased, in our opinion, it is not possible to hold that the appellant on the basis of such slander evidence could have been found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal SCC 536, Ravi Sharma Vs. State , while setting aside conviction wherein the prosecution had relied upon report of Ballistic expert, observed regarding the nature of report of Ballistic expert as under: The report of the Ballistic Expert is obviously a scientific evidence in the nature of an opinion. It is required to use this evidence along with the other substantive piece of evidence available. The report is inconclusive with respect to the firearm belonging to the appellant being used for committing is not just a case that the prosecution has been unable to lead rather is a case where the evidence led by witnesses i.e. PW-5 Mukhtiar Singh 6 Angrej Singh and PW-7 Raj Singh have stated in sharp contradiction to the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances, even if the report of the ballistic expert is in favour of the prosecution, still in the Be that as it may, we feel that only because the recovery of a weapon was made and the Expert opined that the bullet found in the body of the deceased one of the weapons seized, by itself cannot be the sole premise on which a judgment of conviction under Section 302 could be recorded. There was no direct evidence. Accused, as noticed hereinbefore, 34 of the Indian Penal Code but also under Section 302 read with Section 120B thereof. The murder of the deceased was said to have been committed by all the accused persons upon hatching a conspiracy. This charge has not been proved. The e itself opined that the recovery having been made after nine months, the weapon might have changed in many hands. In absence of any other evidence connecting the accused with commission of crime of e to hold that the appellant on the basis of such slander evidence could have been found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal State , while setting aside conviction wherein the prosecution had relied upon report of Ballistic expert, observed regarding the ientific evidence in the nature of an opinion. It is required to use this evidence along with the other substantive piece of evidence available. The report is inconclusive with respect to the firearm belonging to the appellant being used for committing is not just a case that the prosecution has been unable to lead rather is a case where the evidence led by Singh have stated in sharp contradiction to the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances, even if the report of the ballistic expert is in favour of the prosecution, still in the VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRA-D-278-DB-2004 (O&M) absence of that the eye conviction solely on the basis of report of ballistic expert pertaining to recovery of the weapon from the accused the impugned judgment, wherein the accused has been held guilty, cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. 21. The appeal, as such, is allowed and impugned judgment dated order of sentence dated 2 Judge, Panipat charges framed against discharged. 22. A copy of this judgment be dealt with under rules upon expiry of limitation for filing appeal the case may be 09.04.2025 Vimal (O&M) ( 11 ) absence of any other substantive evidence and rather in the wake of the fact that the eye-witnesses stated to the contrary, it is certainly not safe to base conviction solely on the basis of report of ballistic expert pertaining to recovery of the weapon from the accused o the impugned judgment, wherein the accused has been held guilty, cannot sustain and is liable to be set aside. The appeal, as such, is allowed and impugned judgment dated order of sentence dated 28.02.2004 passed by learned Panipat are hereby set aside. The appellant charges framed against him. His bail bonds/surety bonds shall stand A copy of this judgment be sent to the quarters concerned. Case property be dealt with under rules upon expiry of limitation for filing appeal the case may be. (GURVINDER SINGH GILL Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: substantive evidence and rather in the wake of the fact witnesses stated to the contrary, it is certainly not safe to base conviction solely on the basis of report of ballistic expert pertaining to or as regards its use. Consequently the impugned judgment, wherein the accused has been held guilty, cannot The appeal, as such, is allowed and impugned judgment dated 21.02.2004 and passed by learned Additional Sessions are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the bail bonds/surety bonds shall stand sent to the quarters concerned. Case property be dealt with under rules upon expiry of limitation for filing appeal/revision, as GURVINDER SINGH GILL) JUDGE (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No substantive evidence and rather in the wake of the fact witnesses stated to the contrary, it is certainly not safe to base conviction solely on the basis of report of ballistic expert pertaining to Consequently, the impugned judgment, wherein the accused has been held guilty, cannot and Sessions acquitted of all the bail bonds/surety bonds shall stand sent to the quarters concerned. Case property be /revision, as VIMAL KUMAR 2025.04.09 12:47 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document