ü 

A Accused Name: Chhaakki Lal and Akhilesh

ü Victim Name:  Phoolwati, Rinku Singh, Ganeshi Bai, and Ganga Singh 

§  Date of Incident: 2006

§  Submission of forensic report: 2009

§  Trial Court Conviction: 2012 (Life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC)

§  High Court Acquittal: 2016 (Madhya Pradesh HC)

§  Supreme Court Judgment: 26 September 2018 (Restored conviction)

ü Appeals Timeline

·        2012–2016: The Accused appealed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court against the Trial Court’s conviction.

·        2016–2018: The State of MP appealed to the Supreme Court against the HC’s acquittal.

·        Final Judgment: 26 September 2018 (SC verdict).

ü Supreme Court of India – Criminal Appeal No. 1061 of 2018

ü Decided on: 26 September 2018

ü Judges: Supreme Court of India Chief Justice R. BANUMATHI, VINEET SARAN, JJ.

ABSTRACT

The state of historical sites like Khajuraho and Sanchi, its rich wildlife and national parks like Kanha and Bandhavgarh, and its status as the "Tiger State of India". The state is also known for its significant mineral resources, particularly diamonds and copper. I am talking about the heart of India, Madhya Pradesh. A state of grace and beauty became ashamed on 20.02.2006. The day when humanity lost its presence. Our hearts experienced the rarest of rare cases. Let's look at what happened exactly in that case.

INTRODUCTION

This case involves a criminal appeal concerning the murder of four individuals, including a child, in a daylight incident. The trial court initially convicted and sentenced the accused to death under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the High Court reversed this verdict, acquitting the accused due to doubts about the reliability of the sole eyewitness testimony. The Supreme Court re-examined the case, ultimately restoring the conviction and modifying the sentence.

CASE FACTS 

The prosecution's case is that on a specific day, the accused persons fired upon the victims, resulting in their deaths. The incident was witnessed by Kesar Bai, the mother-in-law of one of the victims, who provided a detailed account of the events, including the firing and the subsequent death of the four victims. The accused were arrested and recovered weapons, which were examined and linked to the firing. The trial court found the evidence credible, leading to the conviction and death sentence. The High Court, however, doubted the reliability of the eyewitness account, citing contradictions and omissions, and acquitted the accused.

CASE BACKGROUND

The incident occurred in broad daylight, with the victims heading towards the fields. The accused, armed with firearms, allegedly fired at Ganga Singh and Ganeshi Bai, and subsequently at Phoolwati and her grandson Rinku, causing their deaths. The worst part was Chhaakki Lal had thrown Rinku on the ground. Chhaakki Lal also fired at Rinku. Chhaakki Lal climbed over Rinku and jumped, due to which, his intestines came out. The investigation included recording a complaint, recovery of weapons, and ballistic examinations linking the weapons to the firing. The trial court’s conviction was based primarily on the eyewitness testimony supported by forensic evidence. The High Court reversed this, citing inconsistencies in the witness’s statements and questioning the credibility of her account, leading to the acquittal.

SECTIONS INVOLVED

The case involves several legal provisions, notably: 

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections-

• Section 302 (Murder)
• The main charge against Chhaakkilal is for intentionally killing Rameshwar.
• The Trial Court convicted him under this section (life imprisonment), which the Supreme Court later restored.
• Section 201 (Causing Disappearance of Evidence)
• Though not explicitly mentioned in the judgment, this could apply if the accused tried to hide/destroy the firearm (but the prosecution did not press it strongly).

2. Indian Evidence Act (IEA) Sections-

• Section 45 (Opinion of Experts – Ballistics Report)
• The FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report matching the cartridge to the recovered pistol was admitted under this section.
• The Supreme Court held that delays in FSL reports do not invalidate expert opinions if the evidence is reliable.
• Section 27 (Recovery of Weapon Based on Accused’s Statement)
• The country-made pistol was recovered based on Chhaakkilal’s disclosure statement.
• This recovery was crucial in linking him to the crime.
• Section 73 (Comparison of Ballistic Evidence)
• The court relied on the FSL’s ballistic analysis to confirm that the cartridge was fired from the seized weapon.

3. Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) Sections-

• Section 154 (FIR Registration)
• The case began with an FIR under Section 302 IPC.
• Section 164 (Recording Confessional Statements)
• If the accused gave any confessional statements, they would be recorded under this section (though not a major factor in this case).
• Section 293 (FSL Report as Evidence)
• The forensic report was submitted under this section, and the court upheld its validity despite delays.
• Section 313 (Examination of Accused)
• The accused was given a chance to explain incriminating evidence during the trial.
• Section 374 (Appeal Against Conviction)
• Chhaakkilal appealed to the High Court, which acquitted him, but the Supreme Court reversed the acquittal under this appellate provision.

4. Arms Act, 1959-

• Section 25(1)(a) (Possession of Illegal Firearm)
• Since a country-made pistol was used, this section could apply, but the focus remained on murder (Section 302 IPC).

MEDICO-LEGAL REPORT

1.     Cause of Death:

o    Gunshot injury (as confirmed by the postmortem report).

o    The bullet entry/exit wounds and trajectory were consistent with a close-range firearm injury.

2.     Recovery of Bullet:

o    The bullet was extracted from the deceased’s body and sent for ballistic examination.

o    The FSL report matched it to the country-made pistol recovered from the accused.

3.     Other Injuries:

o    No signs of struggle or additional wounds (ruled out alternative theories like physical assault).

4.     Time of Death:

o    Estimated based on rigor mortis and other biological markers, aligning with eyewitness accounts.

ROLE OF FORENSIC BALLISTICS

       I.            The role of forensic ballistics in this case was crucial in establishing the involvement of the accused and linking them to the crime.

    II.            The ballistic experts examined the weapons recovered from the accused—specifically a country-made pistol and a 12-bore gun—and determined that the fired cartridges (kartoos) found at the crime scene matched the weapons seized during the investigation.

 III.            The ballistic reports confirmed that the cartridges had been fired from the pistol recovered from the accused Chhaakki Lal, and the live cartridges could have been fired from the 12-bore gun recovered from the accused Akhilesh.

IV.            This forensic evidence provided a scientific link between the weapons and the firing at the victims, thereby supporting the prosecution's case that the accused used these weapons during the commission of the murders.

   V.            The ballistic evidence, in conjunction with the eyewitness testimony and other investigation details, played a significant role in establishing the guilt of the accused and corroborating their involvement in the crime.

Why High Court Rejected Ballistic Evidence

Ballistic Examination (FSL Report)

• The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Madhya Pradesh, examined:
• Recovered firearm (country-made pistol).
• Fired cartridge case from the crime scene.
• The cartridge was fired from the recovered pistol, establishing a direct link between the accused and the murder.

v It was further contended that the delay in sending the weapons for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 19.04.2006, which were recovered on 01.03.2006, was a mistake/omission on the part of B.L. Dhanele, Investigating Officer, and the benefit of such omission cannot be given to the accused.

v Delay in FSL report submission (taken 3 years).

v No test-firing was done to confirm the functionality of the weapon.

v Minor discrepancies in witness statements regarding weapon recovery.

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including the credibility of the sole eyewitness, the forensic reports, and the investigation process. It found that the trial court had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of witnesses and rightly believed their credibility.

The Court noted that minor discrepancies in the eyewitness account, which could occur due to grief and trauma, did not undermine the overall reliability of her testimony.

It emphasized that the quality of evidence is more important than quantity and that conviction could be based on a solitary, trustworthy witness supported by forensic evidence.

The Court also considered procedural lapses, such as delays in sending weapons for examination, but determined these did not significantly affect the case’s credibility.

Supreme Court’s View on Ballistics

• Reversed the acquittal, holding that:
• FSL report (u/s 45, Indian Evidence Act) is admissible even if delayed.
• Non-test-firing does not invalidate the ballistic report if the weapon was seized properly.
• Eyewitness + Ballistics = Strong evidence unless disproved.

 Ultimately, the Court restored the conviction and sentenced the accused to life imprisonment, considering the gravity of the crime and the passage of time.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in disbelieving the eyewitness testimony solely based on minor inconsistencies. The evidence as a whole was found to be credible and trustworthy, warranting the reinstatement of the conviction. The sentence was modified from death to life imprisonment, reflecting the seriousness of the offense but also the principles of justice and proportionality. The order of acquittal by the High Court was set aside, and the judgment of the trial court was restored accordingly.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

1.     Ballistic reports are crucial in firearm-related homicides.

2.     Delayed FSL reports are still admissible if the evidence is credible.

3.     Non-test-firing is not fatal to prosecution if recovery is properly documented.

4.     Chain of custody must be maintained for forensic evidence to hold weight.

5.     This case reinforces the importance of forensic ballistics in criminal trials and warns against technical hyper-technical acquittals.

Case story:

On 29 September 1935, two chopped bodies were found under the bridge near a river flowing nearby in a town called Drumfriesshir in Moffett. On initial examination, the police thought that there were two bodies, one male and one female, as all evidence to identify both the bodies had been eliminated. The fingertips of the hands had been cut off and parts of the rest of the body had been cut. Upon searching, the police found two chopped heads. Along with that, pieces of dead body and some clothes were also found wrapped in newspaper and bedsheet. The police took the bodies to the mortuary where the bodies were analysed and it was found that both the bodies were of females and from the style of cutting it was found out that the killer was from a medical background or a medical person. When there was no clue as to whose bodies these were, the police found out from the date and name in the newspaper that the murders had taken place between 13th September and 14th, 15th September and because the name was mentioned in the pieces of those newspaper, Sunday Graphics, it also came to light that it was a special edition which was distributed only in Lancaster city of England due to which the police got a lot of help. After getting information about missing people in Lancaster, the police came to know that a girl named Marry Rogerson was missing since September 14. When the police showed the clothes found with that girl to her family, they recognized that those were their daughter's clothes and that she had gone to work at her boss Mr. Buck Ruxton's house and did not return home. After getting information from Buck Ruxton, it was found out that he is a doctor and lives in Lancaster with his wife and children and his wife is also missing. After questioning Buck and presenting all the evidence, it is revealed that Buck killed his wife Isabella Ruxton and his maid Marry Rogerson. Buck suspected his wife of having illicit relations with other men and killed his maid because she was a witness to his wife's murder.

Case Facts:

·         Victim: Isabella Ruxton & Marry Rogerson

·         Accused: Buck Ruxton

·         Date of Incident: 14 September 1935

·         Date of body recovery: 29 September 1935

·         Location: England, Scotland

·         Crime Type: Murder (Homicide)

·         Case Status: Solved

·         Judgement:  Found guilty and hanged at Manchester on 12th May 1936

Role of Forensics In case solving:

1.     Forensic Anthropology: The photo of victim was superimposed into the skull found on crime scene and they matched. This technique is first used in this case.

2.     Forensic Entomology: The maggots were taken from bodies and study of their life cycle helped in time of death determination. This technique of forensic was also firstly discovered and used in this case.

3.     Forensic Fingerprinting: One of the Fingerprint was recovered from the body piece and it matched with victim.

4.     Questioned Document: The newspapers were examined and from that they were found the date of crime and crime area and accused also the victims were identified with newspaper examination.