S.27 Arms Act Mere Recovery Of Weapon Based On Accused’s Confession Insufficient, Ballistic Expert Opinion Vital: Patna High Court
Case: Khusboo Kumari vs. The State of Bihar
Coram: Justices Sudhir Singh and Chandra Prakash Singh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.944 Of 2014
Court Observation: “…the recovery of two country made pistols and two 315 bore live cartridges is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants regarding the commission of the alleged offence. Moreover, there was no attempt made by the prosecution to obtain the opinion of a ballistic expert to ascertain whether the bullet could have been fired from the recovered weapon.”
“Thus, in light of the above discussions and in view of the serious doubt with regard to the identification of the appellants upon thorough application of the above-settled law on the facts of the present case, we hold that it is difficult for the court to ascertain whether the recovered weapon has been used by the appellant in the commission of the present offence and thereby, failure to examine the recovered weapon has caused serious infirmity to the prosecution case. Accordingly, the issue No. (V) is decided in negative,”
Previous Posts
Keywords
S.27 Arms Act Mere Recovery Of Weapon, Patna High Court
