Non-Recovery Of Weapon Of Offence Would Not Impeach Prosecution Case Which Relies On Credible Direct Evidence
Case: Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud, AS. Bopanna and Vikram Nath
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 2021
Court Observation: “The present case is not one where despite the recovery of a firearm, or of the cartridge, the prosecution had failed to produce a report of the ballistic expert. Therefore, the failure to produce a report by a ballistic expert who can testify to the fatal injuries being caused by a particular weapon is not sufficient to impeach the credible evidence of the direct eye-witnesses.”
“The prosecution is not required to prove that there was an elaborate plan between the accused to kill the deceased or a plan was in existence for a long time. A common intention to commit the crime is proved if the accused by their words or action indicate their assent to join in the commission of the crime. The appellant reached the spot with a lathi, along with Idrish who had a pistol. The appellant’s exhortation was crucial to the commission of the crime since it was only after he made the statement that the enemy has been found, that Idrish fired the fatal shot.”
[doc id=12796]
Previous Posts
Right Against Sexual Harassment Part Of Right To Life & Dignity Under Article 21: Supreme Court
Supreme Court Directs WB Govt To Designate More Special Courts To Try Offences Specified In NIA Act’s Schedule Download Judgement
Keywords
Non-Recovery Of Weapon, Impeach Prosecution, Credible Direct Evidence
