2017 P Cr (PLP)

ASLAM JAVED MINHAS, J.

Through this revision petition, order dated 26.05.2015 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala has been assailed, whereby the application under section 540, Cr.P.C. read with section 510, Cr.P.C. for summoning of Forensic Scientist was turned down.

2. The facts, necessary for the disposal of instant Crl. Revision are that the petitioner/accused is facing trial in case FIR No. 03/13 dated 04.01.2013, under sections 302, 452 and 34, P.P.C., registered with Police Station Sahuka, District Vehari in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burewala, wherein he moved an application under sections 540 and 510, Cr.P.C. for summoning of Forensic Scientist along with relevant record on the grounds that his evidence regarding the following reports was necessary for the just decision of the case:- I. Report No.0000088540 dated 11.08.2014 regarding the parcel containing one 7-MM rifle (Item I R) having serial No.103191, marked as 9814/13 II. Report No.0000137676 dated 13.03.2015 regarding the parcel containing one 303-caliber rifle (Item I R) having serial number 103191, marked as 6814/13.

3. The learned trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties dismissed the said application vide order dated 26.05.2015, hence, this revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after referring to the contents of revision petition, submits that the evidence/statement of the Forensic Scientist was necessary to reach just decision of the case. Further submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, without attending the facts and circumstances of the case has dismissed the said application arbitrarily, illegally and unjustly. It has been argued that although the Investigating Officer has not recorded the statement of the Forensic Scientist under section 161, Cr.P.C. and also not include his name in the calendar of witnesses, yet, as per dictum laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court of the country, the Scientist can be summoned as a witness, but the learned trial Court has turned down his application in a hasty manner. Lastly adds that two conflicting reports of the same gun could not be entertained under the law. The report is always prepared after due examination of the item under observation. How this conflict between the two reports has occurred, whether it was due to some mistake or to help the complainant by the contingents of laboratory, who changed the gun/rifle are the questions, which can be answered by the Forensic Scientist, while appearing in the witness box.

5. Conversely, learned Law officer, assisted by learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the impugned order does not suffer any illegality or infirmity. Further submits that the case is hampering adjudication and now at the stage of statement of accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. At this belated stage, the petitioner has filed application just to prolong the trial. It has been argued with vehemence, that in order to detract the attention of the Court regarding his involvement, the petitioner has filed the application:

6. Heard. Available record perused.

7. According to the FIR, Zeeshan Ali, petitioner entered into the house of complainant by scaling over the wall and fired three shots on the person of Mst. Shamim Amin, deceased who succumbed to the said injuries.

8. Police investigated the matter and submitted report under section 173, Cr.P.C. before the learned trial Court. As per contents of report under section 173, Cr.P.C., when the petitioner was arrested, during his physical remand, got recovered a rifle 303 resultantly FIR No.21/13 dated 24.01.2013 under sections 13/20/65, A.O. was lodged at Police Station Sahooka. But the police instead of recovered rifle 303 sent .7-MM caliber rifle to the FSL for examination. Upon which, FSL prepared report No.0000088540 dated 18.09.2014 and according to said report, the cartridges were not found matched as those were not found fired from the Rifle .7-mm. later on police again sent 303 caliber rifle to FSL for examination and as per report No. 0000137676 dated 13.05.2015, the cartridges were matched with the gun as the same were fired from the 303-rifle. Keeping in view the above said facts, it is admitted that the police had mistakenly sent the rifle .7-mm for examination. This may occur due to load of work. Further, as per section 510 of Cr.P.C. any report of fire arms expert appointed by the Government is admissible in evidence without examining him.

9. Section 510, Cr.P.C. pertaining to report of chemical examiner etc. is hereby reproduced as under for ready reference: [

510. Report of Chemical Examiner, Serologist, etc. Any document putporting to be a report, under the hand of any Chemical Examiner, Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government or any Serologist, fingerprint expert or fire arm expert appointed by Government upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this Code, may, without calling him as a witness, be used as evidence in any inquiry trial or other proceeding under this Code. Provided that the Court may [if it considers necessary in the interest of justice] summons and examine the person by whom such report has been made]

10. The petitioner was charge sheeted and the evidence was called. When the case was hampering adjudication at the stage of statement of the petitioner/accused under section 342, Cr.P.C. The petitioner moved application under sections 540, 510, Cr.P.C. for summoning of Forensic Scientist, who unsealed the parcel and after due examination, prepared two conflicting reports.

11. Report of FSL is merely a corroborative piece of evidence and any weakness in that regard do not effect the ocular evidence duly corroborated by medical evidence. It is an admitted fact that the cartridges do not match with the rifle .7-mm which were sent mistakenly rather those were match with the 303-caliber rifle, which fact is duly find mentioned in the report.

12. The fate of the case would be decided after recording of evidence and there is no need to summon the forensic scientist as the reports are available on record. It is actually mistake of local police, who sent two different rifles.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any illegality or infirmity in the order dated 26.05.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. As such, the petition in hand has no merits and the same is hereby DISMISSED. HBT/Z-5/L Petition dismissed.