Case Details
· Case Reference: Nar Singh vs State of Haryana
· Court: In The Supreme Court Of India
· Bench: Justice R. Banumathi, Justice T.S. Thakur
· Date of Judgment: November 11, 2014
Introduction
The importance of forensic ballistics in shooting-related offences cannot be understated, as it helps investigators identify the weapon used, examine the bullet, determine if the gun was fired, and, in some cases, even determine whether a particular bullet has been fired from a particular gun. One notable Indian case that illustrates the significance of ballistic evidence is Nar Singh v. State of Haryana, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 11 November 2014. According to the judgment, Rajbir was shot and killed, and the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence consisted of a country-made pistol found in one of the accused’s possession and a ballistic expert who testified that the recovered bullet could have been fired from that particular pistol.
Background of the Case
This case involves an event from the evening of March 6, 2005, in Haryana.
At 7:30 PM, Rajbir went to sleep outside on a cot. Around 11 PM, his brother, Daya Nand, heard someone vomiting and found Rajbir outside, in pain and bleeding from the forehead.
Daya Nand alerted their father, Chander Bhan. They rushed to take Rajbir to the doctor but Rajbir died before any medical help could arrive.
The police were called, an FIR was lodged under Section 302 IPC, and the case was registered. During the investigation, Nar Singh was arrested on 14 March 2005.
The prosecution said that the suspect led the police to a country-made pistol concealed behind a water tank at his house.
i. The firearm, which was recovered, was said to be a country-made pistol, which could fire a .315-inch and .303-inch cartridge.
ii. The pistol and the bullet, which were recovered during the post-mortem examination, were sent for a ballistic examination.
iii. This is important because recovering a firearm from a suspect does not prove that that particular firearm was used in the commission of a crime. It would be examined scientifically whether the firearm could be used in conjunction with the recovered ammunition or the projectile.
What The Lower Authorities Held
The trial court found that the prosecution had established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence against Nar Singh. Key pieces of evidence included:
- Testimony from the deceased's mother regarding a motive for the murder.
- Eyewitness accounts of Nar Singh's presence at the crime scene.
- Recovery of a country-made pistol from the appellant's residence, which was linked to the murder through ballistic analysis.
The High Court affirmed the trial court's findings, emphasizing the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence presented.
This appeal is direct against the judgment date 30.08.20212 passed in CRL. Appeal D-960-DB/2006 by the high court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing the appeal of accused-appellant thereby confirming the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, IPC and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.20,000/- with default clause and conviction under Section 25 (1B) of the Arms Act, 1959 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default clause as imposed by the trial court
To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 14 and exhibited documents and material objects. Upon consideration of the evidence, the trial court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as aforesaid. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction for both the offences and imposed a sentence of imprisonment on the appellant. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal by special leave.
Circumstances Relied Upon by the Prosecution
Being based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution relied on the following circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused:
i. Motive – evidence of PW-8, mother of the deceased, who had spoken about an incident that had happened 18 years ago when Rajbir- the deceased and Hoshiar Singh– father of the accused were bringing 'boorada' from village Satnali in a mechanised cart and that the said cart overturned on the way and Hoshiar Singh died in the accident due to which the appellant and his family had a grudge against Rajbir, as they felt that Rajbir had killed his father. She further stated that about four years back, the accused threatened Rajbir that he would avenge the murder of his father;
ii. Evidence of PW-11 Ranbir Singh, who deposed that on 06.03.2005, when he came out of his house at about 11.00 p.m., he saw the appellant Nar Singh running in the street. PW-11 also claims to have heard the sound of a firearm shot;
iii. Disclosure statement of the appellant which led to the recovery of a country-made pistol (chambered for .315” and .303” calibre firearms) from behind the water tank of the appellant's house;
iv. Exhibit P-13 and evidence of PW-10, Dr. J.K. Bhalla, who conducted a post-mortem on the body of the deceased Rajbir and recovery of a bullet from the occipital area of the brain of the deceased Rajbir; and
v. Opinion of the Ballistic Expert (Ext. P-12) that the country-made bullet (chambered for .315” & .303” calibre firearms) had been fired from the country-made pistol (chambered for .315 & .303 cartridges) recovered in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused and not from any other firearm.
The trial court, as well as the High Court, held that the above circumstances were proved by the prosecution and that they formed a complete chain establishing the guilt of the accused, resulting in the conviction of the appellant. While doing so, the trial court relied upon the Forensic Science Laboratory Report (FSL) (Ex P-12) as a vital piece of evidence against the appellant. The High Court also relied on the FSL report as material evidence to sustain the appellant's conviction. Guilt of the accused. Learned Senior Counsel mainly contended that the only incriminating circumstantial evidence against the appellant was Ex P-12 FSL report, and the same was not put to the appellant.
Forensic Importance
Forensic science students can derive valuable lessons from the Nar Singh case, particularly how forensic evidence can create scientific connections among various forms of physical evidence.
One cannot jump to the conclusion that a firearm that is confiscated from an accused must be the murder weapon.
Likewise, a bullet that is obtained from a deceased victim must not automatically ascertain the firearm that shot and killed him/her.
· A proper scientific investigation must be conducted.
· Among other things, the case discusses:
· The correct procedures for collecting firearm evidence
· The preservation of the chain of custody
· Firearm and bullet evidence
· Testing evidence and Reconstruction
· Comparison studies
· Evidence collected from a forensic science laboratory
· Skilled analysis
· Providing scientific evidence and expert testimony to the court.
Conclusion
The Nar Singh v. State of Haryana case is a landmark in understanding the significance of forensic ballistics in criminal investigation. The example of the case shows how the suspected gun and a projectile that was found on a deceased person could be examined scientifically to prove the connection between the firearm and the shooting.
The evidence related to forensic ballistics played a significant role in building up the circumstantial case against the defendant. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court's consideration of the procedure of treating the FSL evidence is also very illustrative because it demonstrates the principle according to which forensic evidence should be scientifically sound and legally introduced into the trial process. Therefore, the case is an excellent illustration of the whole importance of forensic ballistics.
