FSL Ballistic Evidence Cannot Be Discredited Years After Trial Merely Because Bullets Bear Different Seals: Punjab & Haryana High Court

"Signatures Can Never Be Appended On Bullets — They Are Appended On The Containers", In a significant ruling on the evidentiary value of forensic science laboratory reports and the manner in which ballistic evidence must be challenged during criminal trials, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that arguments attacking the integrity of FSL examination of bullets and firearms — based on the presence of different institutional seals on parcels — cannot be entertained at the appellate stage when they were not effectively pursued at the stage of trial before the Special CBI Court.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Vikram Aggarwal, while deciding the appeals arising from the conviction of the assailants in the Ram Chander Chhatrapati journalist murder case, firmly rejected the contention that the ballistic examination of the recovered .32 bore revolver and fired bullets by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban was vitiated because the parcels bearing the bullets, when opened before the trial Court, showed seals of AIIMS (All India Institute of Medical Sciences) — rather than the FSL seals — and that the FSL expert could not have appended his signatures on the bullets themselves.

Background of the Forensic Issue

After Ram Chander Chhatrapati was shot at on October 24, 2002, the weapon of offence — a .32 bore revolver belonging to A4-Krishan Lal — along with fired cartridges and live cartridges were recovered and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, Haryana for ballistic examination. The deceased had been admitted first to Civil Hospital Sirsa, then to PGI Rohtak, and thereafter to Apollo Hospital Delhi, where doctors removed bullets from his body during surgical intervention. These bullets, along with the revolver, were sent to the FSL as sealed parcels.

Two senior scientists deposed before the trial Court as prosecution witnesses — PW27, Dr. K.P.S. Kushwaha, who was Assistant Director (Serology), FSL Madhuban, and PW28, L.S. Yadav, who was Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistics), FSL Madhuban. PW28 deposed that five sealed parcels were received on November 11, 2002 and two more sealed parcels were received on December 2, 2002. The seals on the parcels were intact and tallied with the specimen seals supplied by the forwarding authorities. He duly examined the fired bullets and the revolver, marked them as BC/1 and BC/2 and proved his examination report before the trial Court.

Court's Observations and Judgment

The Court subjected this argument to close scrutiny and rejected it on multiple grounds, making observations of lasting importance to the law of evidence in criminal trials involving forensic material.

First, the Court addressed the presence of AIIMS seals on Parcel No. 7. It held that this circumstance could not, by itself, lead to an inference that the FSL had never examined the bullets. The Court observed that there were multiple seals on the articles when they were examined, and that "the possibility that no seal had been removed and the cover had been cut from the side and then resealed by different agencies cannot be ruled out." The bullet had passed through multiple hands — from the hospital, to the investigating agency, to the FSL Serology Division, to the FSL Ballistic Division — and seals of different institutions on the same parcel at different points of time was neither surprising nor inexplicable.

"The possibility that no seal had been removed and the cover had been cut from the side and then resealed by different agencies cannot be ruled out."

Second, and more critically, the Court turned to the argument that PW28 could not have appended his signatures on bullets. The Court held that this argument, which sounded attractive at first blush, collapsed upon careful reading of the deposition. What PW28 had stated was that his signatures were appended on the containers — not on the bullets themselves. The Court held that "signatures can never be appended on bullets" and that the deposition, properly read, referred to the marking of the containers and to the examination markings BC/1 and BC/2 inscribed on the cartridge cases and fired bullets as exhibit labels — not to a physical signature on the metal of the bullet itself.

"Signatures can never be appended on bullets — they are appended on the containers."

Third, the Court invoked the overriding principle that senior scientific officers of the calibre of PW27 and PW28 had deposed on oath before the trial Court. They had specifically stated that they had duly examined the firearms and the bullets in FSL Madhuban. The bullets were personally seen in open court not only by the witnesses but also by the Public Prosecutor, defence counsel and the Presiding Officer. The Court held that there was "no occasion for this Court to disbelieve the statements of such senior Officers."

"There is no occasion for this Court to disbelieve the statements of such senior Officers, who deposed in Court on oath."

Fourth, the Court added an important observation about the timeliness of forensic challenges. It held that arguments about the integrity of seals and the condition of parcels are of relevance and must be raised "at the stage of trial, when the case property and articles are opened" — and not years after that at the appellate stage. When case property is opened before the trial Court in the presence of all parties and their counsel, that is the appropriate moment to raise objections, seek clarification from the witnesses and build a record. Belated challenges at the appellate stage, when the opportunity to confront the witnesses directly has passed, cannot be entertained with the same degree of seriousness.

"These arguments would be more relevant at the stage of trial, when the case property and articles are opened and not years after that."

Fifth, the Court dealt with the technical argument about bullet size. The defence contended that the recovered bullets could not fit into the barrel of the .32 bore revolver — the bore diameter being .32 inches or 8.1 mm — and that the discrepancy in size proved the bullets were not fired from that weapon. The Court rejected this too, holding that a bullet may get deformed upon coming in contact with a hard surface or while entering the body. The Court also accepted the CBI's argument that the bullets used in the commission of the offence were lapua bullets, "which are comparatively softer bullets and, therefore, there is a higher possibility of the same getting deformed due to impact and heat."

"A bullet may get deformed upon coming in contact with a hard surface and while entering the body."

The Court further drew strength from the statements of PW12-SI Devinder, PW30-DSP Vijay Singh and PW34-Jaipal Singh regarding the sealing of the parcels at various stages of investigation and their transportation to the FSL, finding that none of these statements "raised any eyebrow." The trial Court had also dealt with the entire issue in paragraphs 117 to 119 of its judgment and having gone through those findings in detail, the High Court found no reason to interfere.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld the FSL ballistic evidence in its entirety, holding that the presence of AIIMS seals on parcels containing bullets — which had passed through a hospital setting before being sent to the forensic laboratory — did not vitiate the examination. The Court laid down the important principle that forensic evidence cannot be attacked effectively at the appellate stage on grounds that relate to the physical condition of case property, when the same opportunity existed at the time of trial before the lower court. The corroboration between the testimony of the senior FSL scientists, the deposition of investigating officers, the ocular evidence and the medical evidence together conclusively established the link between the recovered weapon and the fatal gunshot injuries suffered by Ram Chander Chhatrapati.

Date of Decision: March 7, 2026