In Brief
A ballistic expert working at a forensic laboratory gave a written expert opinion that he could not provide a definite opinion on whether two cartridge cases were fired from the same firearm without examining the suspected firearm. During trial, the court pressed him for an answer, and he stated they appeared to have been fired from different firearms. The High Court initiated perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, finding he had shifted his stand to help the accused. The Supreme Court quashed the proceedings, holding the expert was consistent throughout—both his written report and oral testimony carried the caveat that a definite opinion required the firearm. The court-instigated opinion without the firearm was not voluntary perjury, and rejecting expert evidence does not automatically constitute false evidence merely because the expert lacked necessary material for a conclusive opinion.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.