Omission to Obtain Ballistic Report Is a Vital and Serious Mistake: Calcutta High Court Acquits Nine Accused

“No attempt was made to verify whether fatal shot came from seized firearms – Failure to link weapon to crime is fatal to prosecution” – In a critical rebuke to investigative failures in a murder case involving alleged firearm usage, the Calcutta High Court, in its judgment, set aside the conviction of nine individuals who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by a trial court in Sessions Trial No. 01(03)2012, holding that the prosecution’s failure to obtain a ballistic report to match seized weapons with the fatal gunshot wound amounted to a “vital and serious mistake” that struck at the heart of the case.

Delivering the judgment, the Division Bench of Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray observed:

“The omission to obtain arms expert’s report for ascertaining whether the fatal blow was shot from any of the seized guns is undoubtedly a vital and serious mistake and cannot be viewed lightly.”

The Court found that the prosecution had entirely failed to prove the nexus between the alleged weapon and the death of the victim, which was essential to sustain a conviction under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

“No Ballistic Opinion, No Recovered Bullet, No Exit Wound – Prosecution’s Case Collapses Under Its Own Weight”

The High Court was particularly scathing about the absence of forensic procedure in a case involving a gunshot death. The post-mortem confirmed the victim died from a gunshot wound, yet:

• No bullet or cartridge was recovered from the body.

• There was no exit wound noted.

• No ballistic expert opinion was sought, despite the seizure of arms allegedly related to the case.

• The weapons were not properly tagged to the current case but were instead shown as recovered in another unrelated case.

The bench expressed serious concern that such investigative failure left a gaping hole in the prosecution’s theory:

“There is no evidence whether the shot was fired from any of the guns recovered... The failure to obtain ballistic report is a fatal lapse.”

“Without Ballistic Link, No Proof of Weapon Used in Crime” – Conviction Held Unsustainable

Citing a string of Supreme Court precedents including Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab and Ram Singh v. State of U.P., the High Court reaffirmed the principle that in cases involving firearms, forensic linkage of the weapon with the injury is crucial. Where such link is absent, conviction becomes untenable unless there is overwhelming direct evidence.

In this case, however, the two key eyewitnesses—the victim’s minor children (PW2 and PW3)—gave conflicting versions of whether the mother was attacked with sharp weapons or shot, and their accounts lacked corroboration. The Court held that the investigation’s failure to obtain ballistic verification to settle this ambiguity was not merely negligent, but constitutionally and legally defective.

“Trial Court Failed to Scrutinise Absence of Forensic Evidence” – High Court Intervenes to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice

The Court observed that the trial court had failed to apply settled principles of criminal law while convicting the accused, and had overlooked the absence of expert evidence that could have established a forensic trail linking the crime to the accused:

“The learned trial court did not deal with this aspect elaborately… The omission is a serious mistake, and the court below failed to evaluate this lacuna.”

Ultimately, the High Court acquitted all nine appellants, giving them the benefit of doubt in view of the serious investigative and evidentiary failures, and ordered their immediate release, provided they were not wanted in any other case.

Judicial Reminder: Forensic Negligence Cannot Form Basis of Criminal Conviction

This judgment serves as a stern reminder that forensic discipline is not optional in gunshot homicide cases. Courts cannot permit convictions to stand on speculative or incomplete evidence, particularly where basic procedural steps like ballistic testing are ignored.

By declaring the omission to obtain an arms expert’s report as a “vital and serious mistake,” the Calcutta High Court has reinforced that scientific investigation is indispensable to the integrity of criminal trials and that legal conclusions must rest on proven facts, not conjecture.

Date of Decision: 10th November 2025