# Dara Singh @ Dara Nishad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 506
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-18
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 37389 of 2022
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dara-singh-dara-nishad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-49867
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 293-In firearm
cases ballistic expert's opinion is important-Both
firearm and crime cartridge must be recovered
during investigation-Need for ballistic expert
examination depends on case circumstances-If
accused wants to cross-examine ballistic expert,
trial court should allow it-Grounds exist to
summon and examine ballistic expert who gave
opinion-Trial court's order rejecting plea to
examine expert is set aside. Trial court directed
to summon and examine expert witness.
Accused to be allowed to cross-examine.
Application allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the trial court has applied its judicial mind
while disposing of discharge application.
The trial court while disposing discharge
application by the impugned order has not
considered the relevant contentions and has
rejected the same in a mechanical manner,
therefore, a fresh order is required to be
passed by the trial court on the discharge
application.

11. Accordingly, this application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is allowed. The
impugned order dated 8.02.2021 passed by
Additional
Session
Judge,
Court
No.04/Gangsters Act, Gorakhpur in G. T.
No.148 of 2011 arising out of Case Crime
No.406 of 2010 under Sections 419, 420
I.P.C. and 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti
Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986,
Police Station Khorabar, Disrict Gorakhpur
is hereby set aside. The trial court is
directed to pass a fresh order on the
discharge application of the applicant by a
speaking and reasoned order, expeditiously
strictly in accordance with law, after
affording an opportunity of hearing to the
parties.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 506
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.01.2023 &
18.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 37389 of 2022

Dara Singh @ Dara Nishad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Sujeet Kumar, Sri Pramod Kumar
Sahani, Sri Amrendra Nath Singh
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Manoj Kumar

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 293-In firearm
cases ballistic expert's opinion is important-Both
firearm and crime cartridge must be recovered
during investigation-Need for ballistic expert
examination depends on case circumstances-If
accused wants to cross-examine ballistic expert,
trial court should allow it-Grounds exist to
summon and examine ballistic expert who gave
opinion-Trial court's order rejecting plea to
examine expert is set aside. Trial court directed
to summon and examine expert witness.
Accused to be allowed to cross-examine.
Application allowed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. Ramdayal Vs Delhi Coorp., AIR 1970 SC366

2. Bhupinder Singh Vs St. of Pun., AIR , 1988 SC
1011

3. Gulab Vs St. of U.P., 2021 SCC online SC1211

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. आवेदक की ओर से ववद्वान अविवक्ता श्री
अमरेंद्र नाथ वसिंह, श्री प्रमोद कुमार वसिंह और सुजीत
कुमार एविं ववपक्षी सिंख्या-2 की तरफ से ववद्वान
अविवक्ता श्री मनोज कुमार एवम् राज्य की ओर से
ववद्वान अपर शासकीय अविवक्ता को सुना गया तथा
पत्रावली का पररशीलन वकया गया।

2. प्राथी ने िारा 482 दण्ड प्रविया सिंवहता के
अिंतगगत जी. टी. वाद सिंख्या-55 सन् 2007, राज्य
ववरुद्ध दारा वनषाद एविं अन्य अपराि सिंख्या-253,
सन् 2006, अिंतगगत िारा 147, 148, 149, 302
भारतीय दण्ड सिंवहता तथा िारा-3(1), उत्तर-प्रदेश
गुण्डा अविवनयम, थाना बडहलगिंज, वजला-गोरखपुर
में अपर सत्र न्यायािीश न्यायालय सिंख्या-3, ववशेष
न्यायािीश, गुण्डा अविवनयम को वनरस्त करने के
वलए प्रस्तुत वकया गया है।
3 All. Dara Singh @ Dara Nishad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
507

3. सिंक्षेप में याविका के तथ्य यह है वक ववपक्षी
सिंख्या-2 द्वारा दजग कराये गये प्रथम सूिना ररपोटग,
वदनािंवकत 10.06.2006 के अिंतगगत ववपक्ष सिंख्या-2
का बयान बारा-161 दण्ड प्रविया सिंवहता में अिंवकत
वकया गया, वजसमें उन्ोिंने प्राथी के ववरुद्ध कोई
वववशष्ट आरोप नहीिं लगाया है। आरोपपत्र प्रस्तुत
करने के उपरािंत मुख्य न्यावयक दण्डाविकारी
गोरखपुर द्वारा सिंज्ञान वलया गया तथा मामले को सत्र
सुपुदग वकया गया तथा सत्र वाद का वविारण प्रारम्भ
हुआ। प्राथी को झूठा फिंसाया गया है। प्राथी के पास
शस्त्र अनुज्ञप्ति के आिार पर एक राइफल है, अतः
राजनीवतक व्यप्तक्त होने के कारण उसे दूवषत
आशयोिं से राइफल का प्रयोग करते हुए वदखाया गया
है। शस्त्र ववशेषज्ञ की आख्या वववि ववज्ञान
प्रयोगशाला लखनऊ से मिंगाई गई। बिाव में साक्ष्य
प्रस्तुत करने के अवसर पर यह ज्ञात हुआ वक
ववशेषज्ञ की आख्या नहीिं मिंगाई गई है। तदुपरािंत
शस्त्र • ववशेषज्ञ को साक्षी के रूप में आहूत करने के
वलए प्राथगनापत्र प्रस्तुत वकया गया। क्ोिंवक वही बता
सकते हैं वक वकस प्रकार का आग्नेयास्त्र प्रयोग हुआ
है। उक्त प्राथगनापत्र को वविारण न्यायालय ने यह
कहते हुए वदनािंक 17.10.2022 को खाररज कर
वदया वक यह वबलिंब करने के वलए दूवषत प्राथगनापत्र
है वजससे न्यावयक अपहावन होगी। अिंततः परीक्षक/
विवकत्सक अशोक कुमार यादव का साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत
वकया गया है, अतः उपरोक्त पररप्तथथवतयोिं में प्रश्नगत
आदेश वनरस्त साक्ष्य हेतु शस्त्र ववशेषज्ञ को परीवक्षत
करने का आदेश पाररत वकया जाए।

4. पत्रावली पर सिंलप्रक-5 के रूप में वववि
ववज्ञान प्रयोगशाला के आग्नेयास्त्र ववशेषज्ञ की आख्या
वदनािंवकत 24.02.2007 भी प्रस्तुत की गई है।
आप्रेयास्त्र के सिंबिंि में पृष्ठ सिंख्या-55 पर मूल आख्या
की छायाप्रवत सिंलग्न की गई है। िारा -293 दण्ड
प्रविया सिंवहता के अनुसार वववि ववज्ञान प्रयोगशाला
की आख्या प्रदशग डालने योग्य एविं साक्ष्य में स्वतः
ग्राह्य होती है, परिंतु न्यायालय उवित समझे तो ऐसे
ववशेषज्ञ को उसके द्वारा प्रस्तुत आख्या के सिंबिंि में
साक्षी के रूप में आहूत कर सकता है। िारा -
293(4) के अनुसार यह िारा आग्नेयास्त्र ववशेषज्ञ के
सिंबिंि में भी प्रयुक्त होती है। आग्नेयास्त्र ववशेषज्ञ की
आख्या में देशी वपस्तौल से वववावदत कारतूस, विवित
ई.सी. -1, देशी वपस्तौल विवित 1/07 द्वारा िलाये
जाने का पररणाम वदया गया है तथा अन्य मत भी वदए
गए हैं। प्राथी के अनुसार अवभयोजन ने उसके द्वारा
राइफल से फायर कर हत्या करने एविं राइफल को
घटना में प्रयुक्त करने का कथन वकया है। वषग 2005
में सिंशोिन के द्वारा मुख्य ववस्फोटक वनयिंत्रक का
नाम भी ववशेषज्ञोिं की सूिी में सप्तिवलत वकया गया
है। वैसे भी आग्नेयास्त्र ववशेषज्ञ वववि ववज्ञान
प्रयोगशाला के वैज्ञावनक एवम् ववशेषज्ञ माने जाएिंगे।
रामदयाल विरुद्ध वदल्ली कार्पोरेशन ए.आई.आर.
1970, उच्चतम न्यायालय 366, में यह अविाररत
वकया गया है वक अवभयुक्त को जन ववश्लेषक को
परीवक्षत एविं प्रवतपरीवक्षत करने का अविकार
ववद्यमान है। भूवर्पिंदर व िंह विरुद्ध र्पिंजाब राज्य,
ए.आई.आर. 1988, उच्चतम न्यायालय 1011, में
अविाररत वकया गया वक रासायवनक परीक्षक मृत्यु
के कारणोिं के बारे में मात्र एक आख्या देता है,
वजसके अनौपिाररक साक्ष्य की आवश्यकता नहीिं है,
परिंतु न्यायालय यवद उवित समझे, तो रासायवनक
परीक्षक को आख्या के सिंबिंि में बुलाकर उसे
परीवक्षत करा सकती है। जयमाल व िंह विरुद्ध
उत्तर- प्रदेश राज्य, 1987 (1), क्राइम्स 760
इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय में अविाररत वकया।
गया वक जहािं शस्त्र ववशेषज्ञ की आख्या वनदेशक
अथवा उप वनदेशक द्वारा हस्ताक्षररत नहीिं है, ऐसी
आख्या शस्त्र ववशेषज्ञ के साक्ष्य के वबना ग्राह्म नहीिं
है। ऐसे मामले हो सकते हैं, वजनमें न्याय वहत में
रासायवनक ववशेषज्ञ को साक्षी के रूप में आहूत
करना तथा उनका परीक्षण आवश्यक हो। िारा-293
(3) के अिंतगगत न्यायालय को शप्तक्त प्राि है वक ऐसे
ववशेषज्ञ को साक्षी स्वरूप आहूत कर सके।

5. गुलाब बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य, 2021
ए . ी. ी. ऑनलाइन (उच्चतम न्यायालय)
1211 के वनणगय का पैरा 19 से 23 महत्वपूणग है,
वजसे वनम्नवत् अिंवकत वकया जाता है-

"19. The deceased had sustained
a gun-shot injury with a point of entry and
exit. The non-recovery of the weapon of
offences would therefore not discredit the
case of the prosecution which has relied on
the eyewitness accounts of PWs 1, 2 and 3.
In Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, Dr
508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A S Anand (as the learned Chief Justice
then was) speaking for a two-judge Bench
held:

"21.
There
is
yet
another
infirmity in this case. We find that whereas
an empty [sic] had been recovered by PW
6, ASI Raghubir Singh from the spot and a
pistol along with some cartridges were
seized from the possession of the appellant
at the time of his arrest, yet the prosecution,
for reasons best known to it, did not send
the recovered empty [sic] and the seized
pistol to the ballistic expert for examination
and expert opinion. Comparison could have
provided link evidence between the crime
and the accused. This again is an omission
on the part of the prosecution for which no
explanation has been furnished either in the
trial court or before us. It hardly needs to
be emphasised that in cases where
injuries are caused by firearms, the
opinion of the ballistic expert is of a
considerable importance where both the
firearm and the crime cartridge are
recovered during the investigation to
connect an accused with the crime.
Failure to produce the expert opinion
before the trial court in such cases
affects
the
creditworthiness
of
the
prosecution case to a great extent."

 (emphasis supplied)

20. The above extract which has
been relied upon by the learned Counsel for
the appellant emphasises that in a case
where injury has been caused by a firearm,
the opinion of the ballistic expert is of
considerable importance where both the
firearm and the crime cartridge had been
recovered during the investigation. Failure
to produce the expert opinion in such a case
affects
the
creditworthiness
of
the
prosecution case.

21. However, a three-judge
Bench of this Court, in Gurucharan Singh
v. State of Punjab, has analysed the
precedents of this Court and held that
examination of a ballistic expert is not an
inflexible rule in every case involving use
of a lethal weapon. Speaking through
Justice P B Gajendragadkar (as the learned
Chief Justice then was), this Court held:

"41. It has, however, been argued
that in every case where an accused person
is charged with having committed the
offence of murder by a lethal weapon, it is
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, and in
the manner in which, they have been
alleged to have been caused; and in support
of this proposition, reliance has been placed
on the decision of this Court in Mohinder
Singh v. State [(1950) SCR 821] . In that
case, this Court has held that where the
prosecution case was that the accused shot
the deceased with a gun, but it appeared
likely that the injuries on the deceased were
inflicted by a rifle and there was no
evidence of a duly qualified expert to prove
that the injuries were caused by a gun, and
the nature of the injuries was also such that
the shots must have been fired by more
than one person and not by one person
only, and there was no evidence to show
that another person also shot, and the oral
evidence
was
such
which
was
not
disinterested, the failure to examine an
expert would be a serious infirmity in the
prosecution case. It would be noticed that
these observations were made in a case
where the prosecution evidence suffered
from
serious
infirmities
and
in
determining
the
effect
of
these
observations, it would not be fair or
reasonable to forget the facts in respect
of which they came to be made. These
observations do not purport to lay down
an inflexible Rule that in every case
where an accused person is charged with
3 All. Dara Singh @ Dara Nishad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
509
murder caused by a lethal weapon, the
prosecution case can succeed in proving
the charge only if an expert is examined.
It is possible to imagine cases where the
direct
evidence
is
of
such
an
unimpeachable character and the nature
of the injuries disclosed by post-mortem
notes is so clearly consistent with the
direct evidence that the examination of a
ballistic expert may not be regarded as
essential. Where the direct evidence is
not satisfactory or disinterested or where
the injuries are alleged to have been
caused with a gun and they prima facie
appear to have been inflicted by a rifle,
undoubtedly the apparent inconsistency
can be cured or the oral evidence can be
corroborated by leading the evidence of
a ballistic expert. In what cases the
examination of a ballistic expert is
essential for the proof of the prosecution
case, must naturally depend upon the
circumstances of each case. Therefore, we
do not think that Mr Purushottam is right in
contending as a general proposition that in
every case where a firearm is alleged to
have been used by an accused person, in
addition to the direct evidence, prosecution
must lead the evidence of a ballistic expert,
however good the direct evidence may be
and though on the record there may be no
reason to doubt the said direct evidence."

 (emphasis supplied)

22. Similarly, a two-judge Bench
of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jugraj
Singh6 had noticed that surrounding
circumstances in the prosecution case are
sufficient to prove a death caused by a
lethal
weapon,
without
a
ballistic
examination of the recovered weapon. The
Court, speaking through Justice R P Sethi,
had noted:

"18. In the instant case the
investigating
officer
has
categorically
stated that guns seized were not in a
working condition and he, in his discretion,
found that no purpose would be served by
sending the same to the ballistic expert for
his opinion. No further question was put to
the
investigating
officer
in
crossexamination to find out whether despite the
guns being defective the fire pin was in
order or not. In the presence of convincing
evidence of two eyewitnesses and other
attending circumstances we do not find that
the non-examination of the expert in this
case has, in any way, affected the
creditworthiness of the version put forth by
the eyewitnesses."

23. The present case is not one
where despite the recovery of a firearm, or
of the cartridge, the prosecution had failed
to produce a report of the ballistic expert.
Therefore, the failure to produce a report
by a ballistic expert who can testify to the
fatal injuries being caused by a particular
weapon is not sufficient to impeach the
credible evidence of the direct eyewitnesses."

6. इस न्यायालय के मतानुसार प्रस्तुत वाद के
तथ्योिं एवम् पररप्तथथवतयोिं में यवद ववशेषज्ञ की प्रवत
परीक्षा की बााँछा अवभयुक्त द्वारा की जाती है, तो
कोई कारण नहीिं है वक उसे खाररज वकया जाए। यह
उवित होगा वक शस्त्र ववशेषज्ञ वजसने शस्त्र सिंबिंिी
आख्या प्रस्तुत वकया है, को मुख्य एविं प्रवत परीक्षा के
वलए आहूत वकया जाए। इस न्यायालय के मतानुसार
प्रस्तुत बाद के तथ्योिं एविं पररप्तथथवतयोिं में आयुि
ववशेषज्ञ, वजन्ोिंने इस अपराि सिंख्या में आख्या
प्रस्तुत वकया है, उनको साक्ष्य के वलए आहूत वकये
जाने का पयागि आिार ववद्यमान है। अतः यह
याविका स्वीकार की जाती है तथा आदेश वदनािंवकत
17.10.2022 खप्तण्डत वकया जाता है तथा वविारण
न्यायालय को आदेवशत वकया जाता है वक वह
अवभयुक्त द्वारा प्रस्तुत 117 ख प्राथगनापत्र को
स्वीकार कर शस्त्र ववशेषज्ञ को ववशेष वाहक द्वारा
अथवा सामान्य प्रकार से आहूत कर उसे परीवक्षत
कर प्राथी/ अवभयुक्त को उसकी प्रवत परीक्षा का
अवसर प्रदान करे।
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amrendra Nath Singh,
Advocate assisted by Sri Pramod Kumar
Singh and Sujeet Kumar, learned counsels
for the applicant, Sri Manoj Kumar, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 2, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the
records.

2. Order in Chamber.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 510
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application (U/S 438
Cr.P.C.) No. 36 of 2023

Isha Agrawal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Veerendra Singh, Sri Prateek Kumar
Srivastava,
Sri
V.P.
Srivastava
(Sr.
Advocate), Smt. Isha Agrawal (In Person)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Manu Sharma, Sri Dinesh Kumar
Pandey

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 439(2) - Indian
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 186, 228, 352,
353, 354, 354-D, 506& 509 - Information
Technology Act, 2000 - Section 67 -
applicant who was posted as Civil Judge,
Junior Division, one practicing advocate
started sending obnoxious message to her
CUG number and facebook and gazed her
continuously in the court room-this is a
case
where
judicial
officer/Presiding
officer of a court of law has been harassed
on the basis of gender-recovery of mobile
phone of the opposite party shows that he
used the said mobile phone in the
commission of the alleged crime against
the applicant-The session court granted
bail to the opposite party but the Session
Judge did not consider the impact of the
conduct attributed to opposite party that
it will have deleterious effect on the
functioning of the judicial system at the
grass root level, his conduct was not only
criminal in nature but he also committed
criminal contempt of court since his act
amounted to interference with course of
justice
and
obstruction
in
the
administration
of
justice-Hence,
bail
granted by the court below to opposite
party is cancelled.(Para 1 to 10)

The
bail
cancellation
application
is
allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
Satendra Kumar Antil Vs C.B.I & anr.,SLP(Crl.)
No 5191 of 2021
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth, J.)

1. Heard Smt. Isha Agrawal, applicant
in person; Sri Manu Sharma, learned
counsel for opposite party no.2; learned
AGA for the State and perused the material
placed on record.

2. This bail cancellation application
has been filed by the applicant praying for
cancellation of bail granted to the accusedopposite party no.2, Abhay Pratap, in Case
Crime No. 577 of 2022, under Sections
186, 228, 352, 353, 354, 354-D, 506, 509
IPC and Section 67 I.T Act, Police Station
Kotwali, District- Maharajganj by the court
of Sessions Judge, Maharajganj, in Bail
Application No.1927 of 2022, Abhay
Pratap Vs. State of U.P. on 17.12.2022
wrongly relying upon the judgement of
Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar
Antil Vs. C.B.I. & Another, passed in