Crl.A. No. 001547 / 2010

PDF 1 PDF 2 PDF 3 PDF 4 PDF 5 PDF 6 View Full Judgment

Where evidence of identification is identical for multiple accused persons, a conviction cannot selectively sustain against one accused on the basis of a weapon recovery that is itself shrouded in doubt — particularly where the bullet and weapon were inexplicably sent to the forensic laboratory together after a significant delay, and where contradictions in police testimony undermine the integrity of the recovery. As analyzed on casestatus.in, such investigative lapses and procedural irregularities in malkhana custody vitiate the evidentiary value of a forensic ballistic match under Indian criminal law.