The Hon’ble bench comprising Hon’ble Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah held that “if in the ballistic report the bullet found in the deceased body does not match with the firearm/gun recovered from the accused and if the benefit of the doubt is claimed by the accused on the said ground then claim aforesaid cannot be accepted.”
Further, adding to the above statement it is held that “in case gun recovered may not be used for the actual offense committed then the recovered weapon can be ignored and it is to be treated as if there is no recovery at all. For this reason recovery of weapon used in the commission of the offense is not a sine qua non.”
Further, on the question of minor contradictions, it is held that “There may be some minor contradictions, however, as held by this Court in a catena of decisions, minor contradictions which do not go to the root of the matter and such contradictions are not material contradictions, the evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed aside and/or disbelieved.”
In the instant case, the appellants who were accused along with one more accused of committing murder were convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to imprisonment for life by learned Hon’ble Additional District and Hon’ble Sessions Judge which is further upheld by the Hon’ble high court in an appeal by accused.
Subsequently, Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of the Hon’ble High Court, the present appeal is preferred. In the Hon’ble supreme court, the main contention of the counsel for the appellant is that “as per the ballistic report bullet did not match with the alleged pistol used by the accused.”