# [1963] 2 S.C.R. 545 - **Citation:** [1963] 2 S.C.R. 545 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1961-10-25 - **Case number:** Criminal Appea.l No. 890 of 1961 - **Bench:** K. C. DAs GUl'TA, J. R. MuDHOLKAR, T. L. VENKATARAMA AlYAR - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1963-2-s-c-r-545-2516 - **Pages:** 8 ## Headnote • Murdtr-N,ature of gm1shot wound-Proximity of ahot-- Jledical evidence-Oonaideratio•-Witnessu-Evidence.-valu~ < oJ-AaaeBBment- Dodor'• evidence -Oroaa·eZtlmination -No ). challenge -Indian Penal Ooae, 1860 ( 46 of 1860), a. 302. The appellant was tried and convicted for murder and sentenced to death. Two eye witnesses testified that· he shot and killed "the deceased from a shop while the later was pass· ing on a motor cycle; The doctor who conducted the post· mortem gave evidence that the shot might have been fired from a distance of three or four feet. This evidence was not challenged in cross-examination; On ·appeal to the High Court the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The appeal came up before· the Supreme Court by way or special leave. The main contention on behalf of the appellant was that the characteristic of the wound which would. have shown that the deceased was shot from a distance of few inches and not from the distance stated by the witnesses were not taken into consideration by the High Court. It was contended that if the High Court had considered these factors the credibility of the witnesses would have become doubtful, · Held, that the nature and features of the fatal wound should ordinarily be taken into consideration in aslCSling the 1911 T/11 BetiN•l s • .- 0 otnmiuiOlflf' •• Sundnd•s Bhuin r-J. 1961 i.lf'il '"· 195• s.wa s;,,,,. ... Siar, •! l'rmj.b 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] value of the evidence of the eye witnesses. On consideration of all the features of the wound as described by the doctor the conclusion is reached that the doctor's opinion, which wa1 not challenged in cross-examination, that the shot was fu ed from a distance of three to four feet is correct. ## Text ! s.c.:R.. SUPREME OOtmT RICPORTS this appeal must be allowed. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition. The High Court allowed uo costs to the respondent. We think in the circumstances that the parties should bear iheir own costs. AppeJJl allowed. SEWA SINGH "· STATE OF PUNJAB (K. C. DAs GUl'TA, J. R. MuDHOLKAR and T. L. VENKATARAMA AlYAR, JJ.) • Murdtr-N,ature of gm1shot wound-Proximity of ahot-- Jledical evidence-Oonaideratio•-Witnessu-Evidence.-valu~ < oJ-AaaeBBment- Dodor'• evidence -Oroaa·eZtlmination -No ). challenge -Indian Penal Ooae, 1860 ( 46 of 1860), a. 302. The appellant was tried and convicted for murder and sentenced to death. Two eye witnesses testified that· he shot and killed "the deceased from a shop while the later was pass· ing on a motor cycle; The doctor who conducted the post· mortem gave evidence that the shot might have been fired from a distance of three or four feet. This evidence was not challenged in cross-examination; On ·appeal to the High Court the conviction and sentence were confirmed. The appeal came up before· the Supreme Court by way or special leave. The main contention on behalf of the appellant was that the characteristic of the wound which would. have shown that the deceased was shot from a distance of few inches and not from the distance stated by the witnesses were not taken into consideration by the High Court. It was contended that if the High Court had considered these factors the credibility of the witnesses would have become doubtful, · Held, that the nature and features of the fatal wound should ordinarily be taken into consideration in aslCSling the 1911 T/11 BetiN•l s • .- 0 otnmiuiOlflf' •• Sundnd•s Bhuin r-J. 1961 i.lf'il '"· 195• s.wa s;,,,,. ... Siar, •! l'rmj.b 546 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963] value of the evidence of the eye witnesses. On consideration of all the features of the wound as described by the doctor the conclusion is reached that the doctor's opinion, which wa1 not challenged in cross-examination, that the shot was fu ed from a distance of three to four feet is correct. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 60 of 196:!. Appea.l by speoia.l Lea.ve from the judgment a.nd order da.ted October 25, 1961. of the. Punjab High Court in Criminal Appea.l No. 890 of 1961 of Murder Reference No. 74 of 1961. Jai Gopal Sethi. G. L. Sare,en a.nd R. L. Kohli, for a.ppella.nt. Gopal Singh, D. Gupta, P. D. Menon, for respondent. 1962. April 27. The Judgment of the Court wa.s delivered by DAS GUPTA, J.- The Appellant was oonvic· ted by the SeBRions Judge, Pa.tie.la., of a.n offence under s.302 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Gurdev Singh a.nd sentenced to death. The Punjab High Court dismissed his a.ppeal and confi. ned the sentence of death. The present a.ppea.1 is on the strength of special granted by this Court. The prosecution case is tha.t at about 2.30 p.m. on November 18, 1960 when Gurdev Singh wa.s pa.BBing the tea-stall of Charan Singh, not far from the Qourts a.t Barna.la. on a. motor cycle, the appellant Sewa. Singh, who wa.s at tha.t time in tha.t shop with a. don hie ba.rrel gun stood up and fired a. Bhot a.t him. Gurdev Singh was hit on the right aide of his ohest and died instantaneonsly. The appellant a.nd one Gogar Singh, who we.a with him, ra.n a.wa.y. · The a.ooused pleaded not guilty. It was not disputed that Gurdev Singh had died of a gun mot ; - .. . . _,,i, 2 S.C.R. ~ -SUPREME COURT REPORTS 547 injury at the time and place as alleged. _ It was strenuously contended, however,, that he was not the culprit. . · . According to the prosecution this occur!ence was witnessed by Charan Singh, the owner of the shop and Mukhtiar Singh, a Student, ·and Bakhta'. war Singh, the two persons who ~ere. havmg tea in the shop. · • ' .-r · At the trial Charan Singh denied any knowledge a~ to who had fired the shot and was declared hostile by the prosecution. The other two witnesses gave evidence that they saw the present appellant, who was known to them from before, firing the shot from a double barrel gun. Their evidence was believed by the Trial Judge and also by the High Court. ·' ' ·. · In support of the appeal it is contended by Mr. Sethi that we should look at the evidence ourselves as the High Court does not appear to have tak__!ln into consideration, in appreciating the evidence, the Characteristics of the injuries caused by the shot. He has. drawn our attention to a decision of this Court in_ Zora Singh v. The Stare of, Punjab (Criminal Appeal No. 81 of 1957: Judgment delivered on 10-5-1957). According to the learned Counsel these featu. - res of the injury as they appear from the Doctor's evidence clearly show that when the gun was fired it was held in· close contact with the I?ody of the victim or within two or three inches of it. This, argues the learned Counsel, shows that the/witnesses. who have claimed to have been the occurrence did not actually see the occurrence as they give a totally different version as regards the distance of the gun from the body of the victim. --- It has to be mentioned that -the judgment· of the High Court contains no discussion on this point and it does not appear that the attention of the learned Judges was 1962 Sewa Singh v. State of PUnjaJ Das Gup!a J lHI StUf!S Sinth •• BIM< of P..job Ber awpla J. MS SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1963) dra.wn to the features of the injury on which we a.re now asked to hold tha.t the shot whioh killed Gurdev Singh was fired from a vt!lry close range, not exceeding a few inches. Even so, we have thought it proper to hear the Counsel on this question, ns in· our view these features ought ordinarily to b9 taken into consideration in assessing the value of the evidence of t.he eye-witneBSes. The doctor's evidence 1hows: ( l) that the wound caused w11s a roundish wound 1-1/2" x 1·1/4" oommunic11.ting with the right chest oa.vity; (2) that the wound was plugged with a oork wadding and card board disc of 12 bore cartri· dge; (3) that the right fourth aml fifth ribs were blown off und~r the wound and also the right lung was punctured over an area 2-l/2"x 2· about in its middle lobe a.bout its interior margin in tho middle which was blown off; (i) that the woollen coat, which was on the body of the deceased, was blood· st&ined with a corresponding rent blackened charred; the shirt was also blood stained with a correspondieg rent blackened. The doctor gave the opinion that the distance from which the shot was fired might be three to four feet. Th'lre was some croas· examination of the doctor in the Committing Court but the correctness of this opinion was not challen. ged. The doctor did not appear to give evidence before the Se~sions Court. His deposition as recorded by the Committing Uourt was treated as eyidence in the Sessions Court under the provisions of s.509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Turning first to the size of the wound it appears to us that far from supporting the theory of death having been caused by a contact shot it indicates that the shot was fired from about a yard a.way. Speaking of ordinary shot-g'uns, Sir Sidney Smith in his Forensic Medicine, 9th Edition; page 182 ea.ye: "At about a yard the charge of shot will enter a.s one ma.88, making a b,ole witl;I irre11ula.~ .. .. ' . ) • 2 S.C.R. SUPREME OOURT REPORTS 549 edges about an inch in diameter." Major Sir Gerald Burrard in his Identification of firearms and Fore·- nsic Ballistics says at P.73: "It may be assumed for all practical purposes that if the diameter of the wound is an inch, or less, than the distance of the shot was 18 inches or under, irrespective of the gauge of the shotgun or the degree of choke. Up to 2 feet there is very little difference in the spread between guns of various and different chokes, the hole at this distance being slightly over an inch in diameter. At 3 feet the hole is nearly 1-1f2 i,nches in diameter, and the difference between the two extremes of boring, true cylinder and foll . choke, begins to be evident.' In Lyon's Medical Jurisprudence, 10th Edition, we find stated at p. 279 thus:...:., "At a distance of 3 feet the shot mass begins to spread, the wo~nd is an inch or slightly more in.diameter." In Taylor's Principles and practice of Medical Jurisprudence, 11th Edition, the matter is described thus at page 334:-In the case of shot-guns the distance from which the weapon was fired may be deduced from the amount of scattering of the charge. Up to about a yard the whole of the charge enters in a mass, producing a round hole about the size of the bore of the weapon ........ . " In ·view qf these authorities, it is reasonable to hold even without knowing whether the gun had an unchoked or a choked barrel that a roundish. wound of 1-1/2" x 1-l/4" would be caused if the gun is fired at a distance of about a yard. We are unable to agree that the burning of the clothes as described by the doctor is any indication that the shot was fired from within a few inches. Mr. Sethi has drawn our attention to the statement made in the several text books that when the gun is fired from a distance of only a few inches the wound would be surro\mded by a zone of black- . ,niDg' snd bvrniDg. In the present cue no mar~ "" Sewa Singh Y.· I St.I< if l'wi;ab • 1962 SITDd Sintli v. Stat. of Punjob Doi Gupta J. 550 SUPREME OOURT REPOR'.l'S [1963] of blackening or burning were noticed by the doctor on the skin round the wound or in the depths of the wound; but the rent in the woollen coat wa.s found blackened and charged and the rent in the shirt blackened. On this question it is important to mention the opinion as given in the Taylor's Principle and Pra.etice of Medical Jurisprudence, l 0th Edition a.t p. 441 thus:- "The a.mount or degree to which the clothes and body of a person may be burnt by the near discharge of firearms bas given rise to a medico-legal inquiry. The facts in any given case can be determined only by experiments with the actual weapon used, and loa.ded· 11s nearly as possible in the same manner a.s it wa.s when used for the purpose which are being investigated. It is impcJssible to state rules as to the precise distance from which it is possible to produce marks of burning, for this depends on the quantity and nature of the powder, the method of charging, and the nature of the weapon. It is unusual, however, to get marks of burning beyond a yard or a yard and a half with a shot-gun, or at more than half a yard with a revolver." According to this view therefore marks of burning may be found in the clothes or body of a person if the shot was fire