ORDER

The State in appeal by special leave against an order of acquittal dated 13th November, 1991 recorded by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Criminal Appeal No. 513 of 1987.

2. Accordingly to the prosecution case, on 16th January, 1986 in village Aabgari, Police Station Udaigarh, Distt. Jhabua, the respondent allegedly fired a shot from his licensed gun hitting deceased - Gulab Singh, who succumbed to injuries at the spot. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place at about 6 p.m. and was witnessed by Soni Bai, PW 1 widow of the deceased and his son Bhanwar Singh, PW 2; as also by Bhuru, PW 3 whose house is located in front of the house of the deceased. The first information report was lodged by Soni Bai, PW 1 at Police Station, Udaigarh next day, i.e. on 17th January, 1986 at 13.15 hours. At that time she was accompanied by Tej Singh, watchman PW 7. After recording the First Information Report, investigation was taken in hand by Shri T.S. Thakur, SHO PW 5. He prepared the injury statement at the spot and after spot inspection and verification sent the body for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Kishore Kumar Mirkar - PW 6 on 18th January, 1986. The respondent was arrested and on his disclosure statement, Ex. P-7, his loaded gun was seized vide seizure memo, Ex. P-8. According to the postmortem report, the deceased died as a result of shock and haemorrhage caused by injuries 5, 7 and 8, as mentioned in the report. The postmortem report also records that those injuries had been caused by gunshot and during the postmortem examination a bullet was recovered from the chest cavity of the deceased. That bullet was preserved, sealed and forwarded to SHO, Udaigarh. After completion of the investigation, the respondent was sent up for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated 18th August, 1987 convicted the respondent for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The co-accused of the respondent Alap Singh was, however, given benefit of doubt and acquitted. The respondent put in issue his conviction and sentence before the High Court and as already noticed, the High Court vide judgment dated 13th November, 1991 allowed his appeal and set aside his conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal by special leave by the State.

3. We have perused the record and heard learned Counsel for the parties.

4. Admittedly, in the present case, on the disclosure statement Ex. P-7 made by the respondent, a loaded gun was seized by the investigating officer PW 5 vide seizure memo Ex. P-8. According to Dr. Kishore Kumar Mirkar, PW 6, a bullet had been removed from the chest cavity and forwarded to the SHO. However, we find that the gun and the bullet were not sent to ballistic expert for any expert examination. This is a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and assumes even greater significance when we find that according to PW 1, the deceased had received pellet injuries at his chest and jaw and the investigating officer PW 5 had also found, at the time of preparing the injury statement, that the deceased had received pellet injuries on his tongue, chest, chin and left shoulder. We find no explanation, whatsoever, to have been offered by the prosecution for reconciling the recovery of bullet from the chest cavity of the deceased and the presence of pellet injuries as deposed to by the witnesses. Since both the bullet and the gun had been recovered, it was obligatory on the prosecution to have sent the same for expert examination so as to connect the recovered licensed gun of the respondent with the crime. In Mohinder Singh v. The State1 under somewhat similar circumstances, this Court opined :

"In a case where death is due to injuries or wounds caused by a lethal weapon, it has always been considered to be the duty of the prosecution to prove by expert evidence that it was likely or at least possible for the injuries to have been caused with the weapon with which a