Discrepancy in FSL Report

Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 1 SCC 118

In the present case, the weapons of offence were alleged to have been recovered
in the context of the investigation in another FIR (FIR No. 311 dated 19-5-
2006). The weapons were marked as W/1 and W/2 in that case. The third FSL
report arising out of the investigation in FIR No. 781 in the present case does
not deal with weapon W/1 at all. Moreover, as we have noted earlier, the third
FSL report wrongly attributes weapon W/2 to accused Rajesh alias Sarkari.
Whether or not weapon W/2 had been made available to the ballistics examiner
was a matter which could have been explained if the prosecution were to lead
his evidence. The prosecution cited a ballistics examiner as a witness and yet,
did not lead his evidence. This must be juxtaposed in light of the fact that the
eyewitness account of PW 4 and PW 5 is not free from doubt. We have also
analysed the evidence of PW 4 and PW 5 and have noted that there is a grave
element of doubt as to whether they were witnesses at the scene of occurrence.
In this context, the Court must therefore hold that the discrepancies which
have been noticed in the FSL report could have best been explained by the
authors of FSL reports both in FIR No. 311/2006 and FIR No. 781/2006. This
not having been done, the accused would, in our view, be entitled to the benefit
of doubt.