The court emphasized the duty of the Court to discover the truth and the need for just decision of the case, highlighting the wide discretionary authority of the court under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR TYAGI, J.

1. The petitioner has filed present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C.") for quashing of order dated 10.12.2020 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mewat in Sessions Case No.554 of 2018 titled as 'State Vs. Khalid @ Khalli' FIR No.147 dated 03.09.2018 registered under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC") and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Bichhor, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning of the Assistant Director, Ballistic, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, District Karnal was dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the filing of the present petition are that on 02.09.2018, Aadil and Aleem brothers of complainant-Aamil Rasid @ Azad and accused Khalid and Subin went to Village Rai for playing volleyball match. Amount of Rs.4,900/- had been collected which was to be paid on decision of the match to the winning team. The amount was entrusted to accused Khalid. They lost the match and his brother Aadil asked accused Khalid to pay the amount of Rs.4,900/- to Rai team but accused Khalid did not give the money and accused Khalid and Subin abused and intimidated his brothers. In the night at about 09:00 P.M., Yasin, Ayyub and Subin and 2-3 other unknown persons armed with batons in their hands and Khalid armed with pistol came and encircled him and other family members. Yasin asked accused Khalid to shoot him and accused Khalid fired a shot from pistol which he was carrying which hit him in the left side of his stomach. Initially the FIR was registered under Sections 148, 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 and on death of complainant Aamil Rasid @ Azad, Section 302 of the IPC was added. The police investigated the case and on completion of investigation, charge-sheeted accused Khalid. During trial, the Public Prosecutor tendered in evidence the report of the Ballistic Expert as Ex.PX. Subsequently, the petitioner filed application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. for summoning the Assistant Director, Ballistic, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, District Karnal for crossexamination. The application was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mewat vide impugned order dated 10.12.2020 on the ground that examination of the Ballistic Expert was not required for just decision of the present case.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

4. The petition has been opposed by the respondent-State in terms of reply filed by way of affidavit of Shamsher Singh, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Punhana, District Nuh.

5. I have heard arguments addressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel and gone through the material placed on record.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the occurrence took place on 02.09.2018, FIR was registered on 03.09.2018 and sample was sent to FSL on 03.10.2018 and there was hardly any possibility of deformation/mutilation of the bullet within this short period when the parcels remained sealed. If the bullet was the same which was fired and taken out from the body of the deceased then why blood was not found on it and threads sent along with it in sealed parcel for examination to FSL. Cross-examination of the Assistant Director, Ballistic, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, District Karnal is necessary for just decision of the case. The application has been wrongly dismissed. Therefore, the petition may be allowed, impugned order dated 10.12.2020 may be set aside and the petitioner may be allowed to cross-examine the Assistant Director, Ballistic, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madhuban, District Karnal with respect to the above said points.

7. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has argued that report of the Ballistic Expert is admissible per se.