that Public Witness 1 took Ex. P. 9 without. Ex. P. 10. The question whether Public Witness 1 borrowed Ex. P. 9 along withex. P. IO and returned it along with Ex. P. IO has a bearing on theappreciation of the testimony of Public Witness 1; that there is mention ofex. P. 10 having been seized along with Ex. P. 9 and Public Witness 67 claimedex. P. 10 as his own does lend support to Public Witness l's version-thoughthe version given by Public Witness 67, in this aspect, is different. Public Witness 34 sworerhat Ex. P. 10 belonged to him. It does not admit of any doubt whateverthat at the time of the seizure Ex. P. 9 was inside Ex. P. 10; this hasbeen recorded in the memo Ex. P. dated 12/12/1973. Itis not likely that Ex. P. 9 was taken without Ex. P. 10. Dhananjay Singh, (P. W. 81), an advocate practising at Bhopal has attested Ex. Public Witness 34/b ; he swore that the revolver was in a cover when Public Witness 67 broughtit along with 23 cartridges. Public Witness 81 lived only about a kilometer awayfrom Public Witness 34; he was a respectable witness of the locality. No significance can be attached to Public Witness l'a omission to tell the police aboutthe holster when it is mentioned specifically in the seizure memoex. P. 34/b. The learned trial Judge did not rightly attachany significance to the slight error in copying the number of the revolverwhich had been described as. 455. The identity of the revolver asthe fire-arm used in this case unmistakably fixed by the clinchingscientific evidence (of Public Witness 109) regarding the two crime bulletshaving been fired from Ex. P. 9. This was specifically stated inp. W. 109's report dated 18/12/1974 (Ex. Public Witness 109-K paras4-5 of "result", Vol. 5-A, page 150), though in his earlier reportdated 11/11/1973 (Ex. Public Witness 109/f Vol. 5-A pp. 142-145,@ page 143 of para 2 of Result ). Public Witness 109 had merely said that thetwo crime bullets appeared to have been fired from. 455 revolver (from the same weapon) having seven lands with right hand twistof rifling, though "a definite opinion could not be given for want ofadequate data"; it is worth repeating that Ex. P. 9 had not been madeavailable to Public Witness 109 then.

( 48 ) WE may now summarise the evidence of the Ballistic Expert (P. W. 109) concerning E. P. 9 in greater detail. He found Ex. P. 9to be in working order; on visual examination, its two consecutivechambers were found fouled with, burnt products of powder-thoughthe barrel was clean; chemical examination of this fuel in the twochambers revealed that it was of black powder. Obviously the twochambers had not been cleaned after the two shots were fired; onlythe barrel appears to have been cleaned.

( 49 ) THE question put to Public Witness 109, to the effect that he did not preparephotographs of other test bullets because they were totally dissimilarto the two crime bullets was rightly denied by Public Witness 109; it does notreveal sufficient insight into how striation match is done. Besides beinga first class M. Sc. in Mathematics Public Witness 109 obtained a Ph. D. inballistics; he had been working in the Centra] Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi for six years previously. During that period he hadexamined a number of cases of fire-arms and had been giving expertevidence in the Courts at Rajasthan and Delhi. He denied the suggestion put to him that Ballistic Science was not sufficiently developed asto enable identification of fired bullets from a particular fire-arm. Hisview is supported by the treatises on the subject, to which there is noneed to refer except that of Dr. B. R. Shafl-rna, who is himself an expert and had studied them.

( 50 ) IN Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation and Trials by Dr. B. R. Sharma (2nd Ed. 1977) the undermentioned observations occur :

"the identification of fired ammunition is always carried outby comparison with test exhibits. Ordinarily, two testcartridges are fired. But in the case of some fire-aimseven one car

Click Here to Read the rest of this document