Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s conviction, finding that the evidence, including eyewitness testimony and forensic analysis, sufficiently proved the murder under Sections 302 and 149 IPC.

Summary

The appellants Ram Pal and Ram Saran were charged under Sections 302 and 149 IPC for the murder of their uncle Birbal Singh, allegedly shot with a shotgun and a pistol. The trial court acquitted them, finding the three eyewitnesses unreliable and doubting forensic evidence such as the presence of an empty cartridge and the smell of gunpowder. The Allahabad High Court reversed the acquittal, relying on the consistent testimony of two eye‑witnesses, the forensic expert’s analysis that the cartridge was a KF‑manufactured 12‑bore shotgun capable of containing 70‑580 pellets, and the recovery of 22 pellets from the victim’s body. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the eyewitnesses were untrustworthy and that the forensic evidence was inconsistent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was entitled to re‑evaluate the evidence and that the trial court’s view was not the only possible interpretation; the forensic and eyewitness evidence supported the conviction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the life sentences imposed by the High Court.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's acquittal under Sections 302 and 149 IPC.
Whether the eyewitness testimonies were reliable enough to sustain a conviction.
Whether the forensic evidence (pellet count, cartridge type, gun‑powder smell) corroborated the prosecution’s case.
Whether a higher court may interfere with a trial court's acquittal when the view taken is possible on the evidence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 313, s. 378, s. 386
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 149, s. 302

Subjects

murderIPC 302IPC 149eyewitness testimonyforensic evidencepellet countshotgunappealacquittalhigh court interference

Judgment

,..,
RAM PAL AND ANR. A
• v.
STATE OF U.P.

DECEMBER 14, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)

Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 rlw s.149-Murder-Caused by gun
shots-Two accused-Acquittal ofaccused by Trial Court-Set aside
by High Court-On appeal, held: PW-I clearly stated as to the manner c
in which the incident had happened-His statement finds full support
from PW3-No reason to disbelieve presence of PWs I and 3, more
so as the FIR had been promptly lodged-Facts that the cartridge case
had been left by assailants at the spot and that the shots had been
fired from a shotgun and a pistol mentioned in the FIR-Post-mortem D
report confirmed PWI 's statement with regard to the range from
" which gunshots were fired-Recovery of22 pellets from the dead body
fitted in with the prosecution story-Conviction accordingly
confirmed.
E
Code ofCriminal Procedure, 19 73-ss. 3 78, 386-Appeal against
acquittal-High Court should be slow to interfere on a finding of
acquittal recorded by Trial court-If the view taken by Trial Court is
possible on the evidence, High Court should not set it aside on the
' ,J,. premise that it was ofa different opinion though it is permissible for
F
it to re-evaluate the entire evidence.

Appellants were charged for offences punishable under
Sections 302/149 I.P .C. They allegedly fired gunshots attheir uncle
resulting in his instantaneous death.
Trial Court found the evidence of all the three eye-witnesses, G
'f PWl, 2 and 3 unreliable and held that that the deceased had been
• shot while easing himself. Examining the Forensic evidence, the Trial
Court held that there was no explanation for the presence of an

789 H
790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

r
A empty cartridge at the spot as only one shot had been fired from each ..
of the two weapons and there was no need for a re-loading of the
weapons in that situation. The Court further observed that the time
of recovery of weapon being 26 hours after the incident, the
Inspector's note about the smell of the gun powder from the right
B barrel of the gun could not be believed as the smell could not have
been present after such a long time. Having held so, Trial Court
acquitted the accused-Appellants. High Court reversed the findings
of the Trial Court and convicted the Appellants under Sections 302/
341.P.C and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
c The conviction of Appellants was challenged before this Court
inter alia on grounds, that the eyewitnesses' account suffered from
various infirmities and that as PWlO SHO in his cross-examination
had testified that there were about 7-8 small shots in a .12 bore
cartridge, the recovery of 22 pellets from the dead body and the
D Inspector's note regarding the smell of gun powder from the barrel
of the gun, falsified the prosecution story. J.;

Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court should be slow to interfere on a
E finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court and if the view taken
by that Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should not
set it aside on the premise that it was of a different opinion though
it is permissible for it to re-evaluate the entire evidence.

F
[Para 6] [795-E]
2.1. P'V-1 is the son of the deceased. It is clear from his
testimony that the relations between the parties were acrimonious
... ·-
and that there had been several bouts of litigation between them.
PWl has clearly stated as to the manner in which the incident had
happened. His statement finds full support from PW3. The Trial
G Judge had disbelieved PW3 on the ground that he was a friend of
PWl and had also been a witness to another murder. The matter has
been dealt with by the High Court in extenso and there is no reason
..
whatsoever to differ from the opinion expressed by it with regard to
the presence of PWl and PW3. [Para 10] [799-E-G]
H 2.2. Even assuming therefore that there is some doubt as to the
RAMPALv. STATE 791

"". presence of PW2, there is absolutely no reason to disbelieve the A
. presence of the other two eye witnesses, more so as the FIR had
• been lodged within two hours of the incident in the police station at
' a distance of six miles from the place of incident.
[Para 11) [800-A-B)
3.1. The facts that the cartridge case had been left by assailants B
at the spot and that the shots had been fired from a shotgun and a
pistol find mention in the FIR. It is also clear from the statement of
Appellant No.1 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the gun which was
licensed to him had been recovered from his house along with 11
cartridges. [Para 13) [800-F-G) c
3.2. The contention, that as PW 10 SHO had deposed that a
.12 bore cartridge contained only seven to eight pellets, the recovery
of22 pellets from the dead body falsified the prosecution story, is
unacceptable. It has come in the evidence of PW-8, the expert in
the Forensic Science Laboratory, that the cartridge used was ofKF D
;<
make (KF stands for Kirkee Factory). It is therefore a cartridge
manufactured by the Indian Ordnance Factory, at Kirkee. KF
manufactured cartridges can contain between 70 shot size (BB) to
580 shot size (9) pellets per cartridge. The 7-8 pellets that have been
referred to by PW 10 SHO would be pellets of buck shot such as E
SG/LG which are not manufactured by the Kirkee Factory. The post-
mortem report also shows that there were multiple wounds of entry
1/8th of an inch over the whole of the chest and upper half of abdomen
in an area of 14" x 12", which confirms PWl 's statement that the
' ,> two shots had been fired from a distance of about 40 or 50 feet as F
on account of dispersal of the pellets at that range, not all would have
struck home. The recovery of 22 pellets therefore fits in with the
prosecution story. The argument based on the gun powder smell from
the barrel is equally without substance, as no scientific means for
fixipg the time of firing are available. G
[Paras 14and15) [801-C-D; 802-E-G]
1' Paliav. State ofPunjab, [1997) SCC Crl. 383; Baldev Singh v.
• State ofPunjab, [1990) 4 SCC 692 and Santa Singh v. State ofPunjab,
AIR (1956) SC 526, distinguished.
Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials by Dr. H
792 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

~

A B.R.Sharma, 4th Edition and Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and
Toxicology, 23rd Edition, referred to.
4,

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
465 of2006.
B From the final Judgment and Order dated 9.12.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Govt. Appeal No. 941/1994.
Mahabir Singh, Rakesh Dahiya, Nikhil Jain, Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal and Preeti Singh for the Appellants.
c Ratnakar Dash, Kamlendra Mishra and Rajiv Dubey for the
Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J. 1. This appeal by special leave arises
D out of the following facts.
2. One Lal Singh had three sons, Hari Singh, Jaswant Singh and "
Birbal Singh. Brij Pal Singh PW 1, Ved Pal and Gajender Singh are the
sons ofBirbal Singh whereas Suraj Bhan, Netar Pal and Satbir Singh are
the sons of Jaswant Singh and Ram Pal and Ram Saran, the accused are
E the sons of Hari Singh. Hari Singh predeceased his father Lal Singh
whereafter the joint land holding was partitioned by Lal Singh between
his sons Jaswant Singh and Birbal Singh and the sons of Hari Singh
deceased in equal shares retaining 18 bighas for himself About 2-3 years
prior to the incident Ram Pal Singh staked a claim that the tube well on ,
....
F the land was his exclusive property on the plea that the electricity
connection was in his father's name. Several civil and criminal litigations
followed on account of this dispute and certain other matters with the result
that the relations between the accused and Birbal Singh degenerated to
an all time low and about two days prior to the occurrence, an altercation
G had taken place between Birbal Singh and his son Brij Pal Singh on the
one side and the accused on the other, relating to the use of the tubewell 'f
water. At about 8.30 A.M. on 20th June 1991, Birbal Singh accompanied
•
by his brother Jaswant Singh and his son Brij Pal Singh left the village to
go to Muz.affarnagar for purchase of house-hold articles when they were
H accosted by the two accused, Ram Pal carrying his licensed DBBL .12 •
RAMPALv. STATE[HARJITSINGHBEDI,J.] 793

~
bore shotgun, and Ram Saran armed with a country made pistol and the A
~
accused fired a shot each in quick succession hitting Birbal Singh killing
him instantaneously Jaswant Singh and Brij Pal Singh saved themselves
by lying prone on the ground. The incident was also witnessed by several
other persons who were passing by amongst them being Harvir Singh PW
2, Tejvir Singh PW 3, Amar Singh and Matroo Singh and on their B
challenge the assailants ran away. Brij Pal Singh PW 1 thereafter rushed
to the village, wrote out a report and then went to police station Tetawi
"' six kilometers away from the place of incident in a tractor and handed
over the written complaint at 10.30 a.m. leading to the registration of the
FIR. SHO Brij Mohan Mishra accompanied by SI Rajinder Singh then c
reached the place of occurrence whereafter the SI recorded the inquest
proceedings relating to the murder. He also picked up a spent cartridge
case and wads of a shotgun cartridge and dispatched the dead body for
the post mortem examination. He also conducted a search of the house
of Ram Pal and Ram Saran on 21st June, 1981 and recovered a DBBL D
gun and l 0 live cartridges licensed to the former therefrom. The weapon
" and the cartridge case were sent to the Forensic Laboratory and its report
revealed that the cartridge had been fired from the right barrel of the gun
in question. On the completion of investigation, the accused were charged
for offences punishable under Sections 3021149 I.P.C and they pleaded E
not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The Trial Court held that though the relations between the parties
were strained on account of several factors yet these differences did not
.
,;.
constitute a sufficient reason for the murder ofBirbal, the uncle of the·
accused, and on the other hand Brij Pal Singh PW l had the motive to F
implicate the accused in a false case and as such it was appropriate that
the eye witness account be examined minutely. The Trial Court then
~ examined the evidence of the eye witnesses PWl Brij Pal Singh, PW 2
Harvir Singh and PW 3 Tejvir Singh and taking up of the case of PW l
Brij Pal Singh first, observed that he was the most important witness being G
~
the son of the deceased but his testimony was not trustworthy as he and
• his brother had picked up a woman in the year 1979 for which a criminal
case was pending and that another case relating to the murder of one
Nirmal was also pending against him, his brother and their father. The Court
also observed that Brij Pal Singh had attempted to cheat his brother Ved H
794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A Pal and Gajender Singh and his relatives of the 18 bighas ofland left by ,.
his grand father Lal Singh and was therefore a man of such abysmally
low character and mentality that he could not be trusted. The Court then
examined the statement ofHarvir Singh and found that he was chance
and stock witness and as he had earlier been an eye witness in the case
B of the murder of one Pradhan. The Trial Court (on this aspect) observed
thus:
"It is a very rare chance (sic) a man to be witness of two murders
in his life time. In that case Ld. District & Sessions Judge did not
relied (sic) upon the testimony ofHarbir and the accused persons
c were discharged. The photocopy of the judgment dated 16.1.1973
passed by Id. District & Sessions Judge is available on record.
As it is stated above that Harbir is very close to the complainant,
deceased and other witnesses. Harbir stood surety against the
complainant in the case of girl kidnapping. He stood surety against
D Vedpal, brother of the complainant and also stood surety against
Jaswant, uncle of the complainant in a case under Section 107I ,,.
116. In brief whenever either complainant or his family members
were in need of surety, Harbir provided his services. Such a person I-

who has already been a witness in a murder case and he was not
relied upon and who is a permanent surety for the party of the
E
complainant could not be relied upon easily". '
4. The Trial Court then examined the statement ofTejvir Singh and
observed that he too had been closely associated with Brij Pal as he had
been in college with him in Muz.affarnagar and that when Tejvir' s uncle ....
F
Karan Singh had been murdered; Jaswant Singh had been one of the
witnesses and that there was no reason whatsoever as to why Tejvir Singh
should have been present in that area at the relevant time as he had no
field or land in that direction. The court then examined the plausibility of
the prosecution story and held that Birbal Singh who was statedly on his
G way to Muzafamagar for purposes of shopping for household goods was
a story which could not be believed as he had not been wearing shoes f
or a cap on his head or a vest under his shirt or an underwear under his •
dhoti and though there was a tonga service available from the village to
Muzaffarnagar he along with the others had still chosen to walk to that
H
RAM PAL v. STATE [HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.] 795

""'- place. The Trial Court accordingly concluded that it appeared that the A
... deceased had been shot while easing himself and the body had thereafter
been taken out by the murderer(s) and put on the boundary of the field.
The Court also examined the Forensic evidence and opined that there
was no explanation for the presence of an empty cartridge at the spot as
only one shot had been fired from each of the two weapons and there B
was no need for a re-loading of the weapons in that situation. The Trial
':>'
Court also observed that the time of recovery of weapon being 26 hours
after the incident, the Inspector's note about the smell of the gun powder
from the right barrel of the gun could not be believed as the smell could
not have been present after such a long time. Having held as above the c
Trial Court acquitted the accused.
5. The State thereafter preferred an appeal before the Allahabad
High Court. The Division Bench Court reversed the findings and convicted
the accused under Sections 302/34 I.P.C and sentenced each of them to
,. . imprisonment for life. It is in these circumstances that the present appeal D
~ I
is before us by way of special leave.
~
"'
~ 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties very carefully. We
i are conscious of the oft repeated principle that the High Court should be
I
slow to interfere on a finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court and E
if the view taken by that Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court
should not set it aside on the premise that it was of a different opinion
though it is permissible for it to re-evaluate the entire evidence. It is in
this background that we must examine the findings of the High Court in
•) the light of the arguments which have been addressed before us by the
F
learned counsel for the parties.
7. Concededly, the facts of the case show that the parties are very
closely related and on account of the dispute relating to the tubewell and
the 18 bighas of land which had been left by Lal Singh, the relations
between them were extremely strained. The High Court accordingly re- G
f
assessed the ocular evidence and held as under:
~
"However the trial judge has doubted the testimony of all the three
eye witnesses on one ground or the other for no substantial reasons.
He doubted the testimony of PW 1 Brij Pal Singh mainly on
H
796 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

t
A threefold grounds (i) he was involved in an abduction case of a
lady and that case was still pending at that time, (ii) he alongwith
his father and brothers assaulted Ninnal and that case was also
pending against him at the time of the occurrence and (iii) he
alongwith his cousin Satvir son of his Tau Jaswant Singh fabricated
B the agreement of sale regarding 18 bighas land of his grand father
Lal Singh debarring his real brothers, cousins and sons of his
deceased uncle Hari Singh from that property observing that he 0(

was a man of such character and mentality that he could do
anything for his self interest. The trial judge also observed that
c inspite of the fact that civil suit of perpetual injunction filed by Ram
Pal was pending against him in the civil court he used to irrigate
his land from the tubewell owned by Ram Pal and his brothers
forcibly. We have given our anxious consideration to all these
grounds and we are of the view that neither of these grounds
D aforesaid got any substance so as to render this witness Brij Pal .
)
Singh an unreliable person. Ifa person was involved in an abduction ~ ~
case it can not be said that in fact he was guilty of that offence. 'II
There may be so many reasons for involving a person in a case
falsely. Further, admittedly Brij Pal Singh alongwith his father and
.•
~

E brothers were being prosecuted for assaulting Nirmal but admittedly
there was a cross-case also against Nirmal and others initiated at
the instance ofBirbal Singh, the deceased against Mahabir, father
ofNinnal and others. Regarding the alleged agreement of sale,
without being adjudicated upon by a court of law it can not be
F
said that it was fabricated one. Admittedly those proceedings .. • •
ended in compromise and after the compromise 18 bighas of land
owned by Lal Singh was mutated in the names of all his legal
representatives. No doubt, Brij Pal Singh and Jaswant Singh
mentioned in the alleged compromise that they had not given Rs.
40,000.00 as part payment to Lal Singh; but in the family there
G are so many matters and on what tenns the compromise was
reached between the parties are not known. Hence any adverse . ~

inference can not be drawn therefrom as PW 1 Brij Pal Singh
stated that whatever he was directed to write in the compromise
he got the same mentioned therein for getting the objections
H
RAMPALv. STATE[HARJITSINGHBEDI,J.] 797
~

• rejected. Regarding irrigation of their land by Brij Pal Singh and A
his brother from the tubewell, it appears that the field in which the
tubewell was situate fell to the share of Ram Pal and his brothers
but that tubewell was joint fan1ily property as it was installed in
the life time ofHari Singh and Lal Singh before consolidation and
partitition in the family and therefore Brij Pal Singh and his father B
Birbal clainled their right for irrigation of their land adjoining thereto
from that tubewell. Hence for the above, it can not be said that
the character of Brij Pal Singh was such that he could not be said
to be a responsible person whose sworn testimony could not be
relied upon. c
The trial judge further mentioned that PW 2 Harvir Singh and PW
3 Tejvir Singh were their own persons as whenever Brij Pal Singh
or any member of his family or the family of Jaswant Singh got
involved in any case Harvir Singh and Tejvir Singh stood surety
~·
for them. We have considered these facts carefully and cautiously D
and we are of the view that there is nothing wrong because if a
person gets involved in some criminal proceedings and sureties have
to be furnished for his bail the persons acquainted with him only
would stand surety for him. It is a matter of common experience
and knowledge that in villages generally there are party factions E
due to one reason or the other and the persons acquainted with
each other share the problems of each other mutually. This is the
way rural life goes on.
J.
~
The trial judge also doubted the credibility of PW 2 Harvir Singh
F
as admittedly he was an eye witness in the murder case of the
village pradhan who was murdered in the year 1974 and again he
appeared as an eye witness in the instant murder case. It may be
just by chance that a person resident of the sanJe village witnesses
two murders. As a man of conscience and character he should
., G
'jc· appear as a witness in the murder case ifhe witnessed the murder
" or was acquainted with any fact relating thereto. If a murder case
in which he had appeared as a witness ended in acquittal and he
appeared as an eye witness after 6-7 years in another murder case
it would not be justified to draw a presumption that he is not a
H
798 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addl.) S.C.R.

7
A reliable person and his testimony should be disbelieved only for ...
that reason.
1be trial judge disbelieved the testimony of PW 3 Tejvir Singh on
the ground that admittedly Satvir Singh son of Jaswant Singh and
this witness Tejvir Singh studied together in S.DL College Muzaffar
B
Nagar and they were class fellows in B.A. and Brij Pal Singh also
used to study in that very college. He also observed that Karan
Singh, uncle ofTejvir Singh (PW 3) had quarrel with one Bhim
and Pratap and in that case Jaswant Singh father of Satvir Singh
stood as a witness in favour of Karan Singh and therefore Tejvir
c Singh appeared as a witness in that case against Ram Pal and Ram
Saran prosecuted for the murder of Birbal Singh, brother of
Jaswant Singh. In our view we can not go by these considerations
in believing or disbelieving the testimony of a witness. By these
facts we conclude only this much that this witness should be
D treated as a partisan witness whose testimony has to be scrutinized
\
with care and caution.
The trial judge also doubted the presence of PW 3 Tejvir Singh
at the scene of occurrence as he stated that at that time he was
E going to the field situate at a short distance from the scene of
occurrence for cutting fodder as he had taken that field from Nain
Singh on batai whereas DW 1Nain Singh stated that he had never
given that field to Tejvir Singh on batai. However this witness Nain
Singh was given a suggestion in his cross-examination that daughter
of his cousin brother and real sister of accused Ram Pal got married ...
F
in one and the same family at village Narsan, District Saharanpur
which he could not deny. He only expressed ignorance stating that
he did not know if daughter of his cousin brother and real sister
of accused Ram Pal were married in one and the same family at
village Narsan, District Saharanpur. It may be noted here that no
G
question regarding this fact was put up by the defence counsel to
PW 3 Tejvir Singh in his cross-examination. Hence the testimony • ~

ofDWl Nain Singh is no better than a got up witness as he might
be denying having given that field to Tejvir Singh on batai under
the influence of accused Ram Pal. Moreover, the presence of a
H
RAMPALv. STATE[HARJITSINGHBEDI,J.] 799

,._
witness at the scene of occurrence can well be tested in his cross- A
examination. Ifhe has withstood the test of cross-examination
firmly and his credibility has not been impaired in his cross-
examination his statement will have corroborative value otherwise
,. not".
B
8. The findings aforesaid have been chailenged by Mr. Mahabir
Singh, the learned senior counsel appearing for the accused/appellants.
9. He has first argued that the eye witnesses' account suffered from
serious infirmities. He has pointed out that all the witnesses were either
related to the deceased or were members of his group and as such their C
evidence had to be accepted with care and caution. He has also urged
that the character of the three witnesses did little to enhance their credibility
and that the High Court had not really met the reasons given by the trial
judge in refusing to accept Harvir Singh's presence at the place of incident.
He has in addition submitted that the High Court had found corroboration D
) + from the forensic evidence in the case but the facts which had come on
the record, belied this evidence as well. The learned State counsel has
however supported the judgment of the High Court.
10. It would be apparent that the fate of the appeal would primarily
rest on the statements of the eye witnesses. We first take up the case of E
Brij Pal Singh PW-1. Concededly, he is the son of the deceased. It is
clear from his testimony that the relations between the parties were
acrimonious and that there had been several bouts oflitigation between
them. Brij Pal Singh has clearly stated as to the manner in which the
incident had happened. His statement finds full support from PW Tejvir F
Singh. The trial judge had disbelieved Tejvir Singh on the ground that he
was a friend ofBrij Pal Singh and had also been a witness to another
murder. We find that the matter has been dealt with by the High Court in
extenso and as per the portion quoted above, we find no reason
whatsoever to differ from the opinion expressed with regard to the G
' presence ofBrij Pal Singh and Tejvir Singh.
11. We however do feel that there is some doubt with regard to the
presence ofHarvir Singh. Concededly, his statement under 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure had been recorded by the police about 22 H
800 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A days after the incident. The justification for this delay given by PW 10
SHO Brij Mohan Mishra who stated that Harvir Singh could not be traced
earlier is perhaps not believable. Even assmning therefore that there is some
doubt as to the presence ofHarvir Singh, we find absolutely no reason
to disbelieve the presence of the other two eye witnesses, the more so
B as the FIR had been lodged within two hours of the incident in the police
station at a distance of six miles from the place of incident.
12. Mr. Mahavir Singh has also seriously challenged the Forensic
evidence in this case by arguing that though the spent cartridge case had
been picked up from the spot on 20th June, 1981 and the gun recovered
C the next day, both these items had been sent to the laboratory only on
17th September, 1981 and as the 22 pellets recovered from the dead
body had not been sent to the laboratory there was no justification in
holding that the weapon had in fact been used in the murder. In support
of his case Mr. Mahabir Singh has relied on Palia v. State ofPunjab,
D [1997] SCC Cr!. 383, Baldev Singh v. State ofPunjab, [1990] 4 SCC
692 and Santa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 526. He has
+{
also urged that as PW I 0 Brij Mohan Mishra in his oross examination
had testified that there were about 7-8 small shots in a .12 bore cartridge,
the recovery of22 pellets from the dead body and the note regarding the
E smell of gun powder from the barrel of the gun, falsified the prosecution
story.

13. We have considered these arguments very carefully. We first note
that the fac:ts that the cartridge case had been left by assailants at the spot
F and that the shots had been fired from a shotgun and a pistol find mention
in the FIR. Interestingly also, there is a suggestion by the defence in the
cross-examination as to whether the spent cartridge had been found near
the dead body or at some distance therefrom. It is also clear from the
statement of Ram Pal recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the gun
G which was licensed to him had been recovered from his house along with
11 cartridges. We have also perused the statement of PW 7 HC
)
Rameshwar Prasad who stated that the weapon and other articles have
1
been sent to the Muz.afarnagar city Malkhana on 2nd July, 1981 but had
been returned to the police station as there was no place for storage and
H had been returned to the Malkhana on 13th July, 1981 awaiting re-
RAMPALv. STATE[HARJITSINGHBEDI,J.] 801

transmission to the laboratory. We also note from the statement of PW 9 A
Randhir Singh a retired constable who was at the relevant time the mohanir
of the Malkhana at Muzafamagar in the police station that the weapon
and cartridge in a sealed condition had been deposited with him on 2nd
July, 1981 and had not been tampered with till their dispatch to the
Forensic Science Laboratory. We have also gone through the statement B
of Om Prakash Tripathi PW 8, the expert in the Forensic Science
Laboratory who had examined the KF .12 bore fired cartridge case and
DBBL gun No.7902082 and had found that the said cartridge had been
fired from the right barrel of the gun.
c
14. Seizing on the fact that 22 pellets had been recovered from the
dead body and that PW 10 SHO Brij Mohan Mishra had deposed that
a .12 bore cartridge contained only seven to eight pellets, Mr. Mahabir
Singh has submitted that the prosecution story was on the face of it
unacceptable. We find absolutely no merit in this plea. It has come in the D
evidence of PW-8 Om Parkash Tripathi that the cartridge used was of
KF make (KF stands for Kirkee Factory). It is therefore a cartridge
manufactured by the Indian Ordnance Factory, at Kirkee, which has, off
and on, been manufacturing cartridges of shot sizes BB to 9 only ( this
information has been reconfirmed from the Secretary, National Rifle E
Association oflndia, New Delhi). A 12 bore shotgun cartridge carries a
shot charge of twenty-five to thirty-five grams in weight and varying
number of pellets based on several factors such as the length of the
cartridge as would be clear from the following chart taken from Forensic
·-~
Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials by Dr. B.R.Sharma (4th F
Edition) at page 416:
Projectile charge of Cartridges

Number No.of pellets Pellets diameter Pellet weight
G
Per 28.35 gs. mm. in gs.
;y

LG 6 9.J.4 ·4.54
"' SG 8 8.43 3.54
Special SG 11 7.57 2.58
H
802 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A SSG 15 6.83 1.89
AAA 35 5.16 0.81
BB 70 4.09 0.40
100 3.63 (.16") 0.28
2 120 3.41 (.15") 0.24
B 3 140 3.25 0.20
4 170 3.05 (.13") 0.17
5 220 2.79 (.12") 0.13 'r'
6 270 2.59 (.11 ") 0.10
7 340 2.41 (.1 O") 0.08
c 8 450 2.21 (.09") 0.06
9 580 2.03 (.08") 0.05
Dust 2770 1.2192 0.0109

N.B. The equivalent in inches of the pellet size shown in brackets
D in the third column has been taken from Lyons Medical
Jurisprudence and Toxicology 11th Edition Page 913 and
superimposed in the chart.

15. From the above table it can be concluded that KF manufactured
E cartridges can contain between 70 (BB) to 580 (9) pellets per cartridge.
The 7-8 pellets that have been referred to by PW Brij Mohan Mishra
would be pellets of buck shot such as SG/LG which are not manufactured
by the Kirkee Factory. The post-mortem report also shows that there
were multiple wounds of entry I/8th of an inch over the whole of the chest
F and upper half of abdomen in an area of 14" x 12", which confirms Brij
Pal's statement that the two shots had been fired from a distance of about
40 or 50 feet. We are of the opinion that on account of dispersal of the
pellets at that range, not all would have struck home. The recovery of22
pellets therefore fits in with the prosecution story. The argument based
G on the gun powder smell from the barrel is equally without substance. In
Modi's Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 23rd Edition (Page 723) 1 '
while dealing with the topic as to "the time when the weapon was fired" "
it has been observed that "it is never possible to ascertain with any
scientific accuracy the time when a weapon or cartridge was fired. "
H
RAM PAL v. STATE[HARJITSINGHBEDI,J.] 803

In this situation, the judgments cited, which are based on their special facts, A
have no relevance to the facts of the present'case.
16. We are therefore of the opinion that no fault can be found with
the judgment of the High Court. We accordingly dismiss the appeal.
B.B.B. Appeal dismissed. B

- l

•