KALUA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Citation: [1957] 1 S.C.R. 187; 1956 INSC 70
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: B. JAGANNADHADAS , SYED JAFFER IMAM, P. GOVINDA MENON
Judgment date:
Case summary
1956 INSC 70. Supreme Court of India judgment dated 1956-11-21. KALUA v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
, S. C. R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 187 been set aside. But s. 100 in terms provides that if the Tribunal was of the opinion, as it was in this case, that the result of the election had been materially affected by the improper rejection of the nomination paper, "the Tribunal shall declare the election to be wholly voi on being made of the cartridge or shell fired from a fire-arm for the purpose of test, they state at page 200, "If they are in the same position in relation to one another and their general appearance is the same, one may conclude that they have been fired from a pistol of the same make. An absolute conclusioR about the origin of the shells, however, can be reached only after a photomicrographic examination of the markings from the breech-block on the rear of the shell ....... . Identification, with . the aid of the enlargement, should not prove difficult. The characteristic scratches can he easily seen.
A photograph of the incnmmating sht:ll and one of a comparison shell should be pasted side by side on cardboard, and the characteristic marks should be recorded wi,th lines and ciphers, following the same method as that used in the identification of fingerprints. " In Taylor's book on Medical Juriaprudence, Tenth Edition, Vol. I, at page 459, it is stated, "It is never safe to say that a caftridge case was not fired from a given pistol unless the marks are quite 1956 Ealua v. Tk Stat• of Uttar Pradesh Imam]. 1956 Kalua v. Tiu Sr. ii •f C. lttor Pradtilr. Imam J. 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1957] different, and a case which bears no marks at all may quite well have been fired from the same pistol as one which leaves well-defined marks.
In general, how- ever, though it is unlikely that all marks will be equally good, it is usually possible to obtain definite information from the marks of the firingcpin, extractor, ejector, or breech-block on the base or rim, or from grooves or scratches on the surface. In-weapons of the same manufacture, the marks are of the same general nature, but in each weapon there are individual Jifferences which usually enable it to be definitely identified. " The expert's evidence in this case shows that he had fired four test cartridges from the pistol Ex. III. He found the individual characteristics of the chamber to have been impressed upon the test cartridges Exs. 9 and 10 and that exactly identical markings were present on the paper tube of the cartridge Ex. I. He made microphotographs of · some of these individual marks on Exs. 1 and 10. In giving his reasons for his opinion.
the fire-arms expert stated that every fire-arm has individual characteristics on its preach face striking pin and chamber. When a cartridge is fired gases are generated by the combustion of the powder, creating a pressure of 2 to 20 tons per square inch. Under ,the effect of this pressure the cap and the paper tube of the cartridge cling firmly with the breach face striking pin and chamber and being of a softer matter the individualities of these parts are impressed upon them. By firing a number of test cartridges from a given fire-arm and comparing them under a microscope with the evidence cartridge, it can definitely be stated, if the marks are clear, whether the evidence cartridges had been fired or not from that fire-arm. It seems to us that the fire-arms expert made the necessary tests and was careful in what he did. There is no good reason for distrusting his opinion.
The learned Judges of the High Court examined the micro-photographs in question and were satisfied that there was no ground for distrusting the evidence of the expert. They were accordingly justified in corning to the conclusion that the cartridge Ex. I, found near the cot of Daya Ram, S. C. R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 195 was· fired from the pistol Ex. III produced by the appellant from his house. There can, therefore, be no room for thinking, in the circumstances established ·in this case, that any one else other than the appellant might have shot Daya Ram. He was, therefore, rightly convicted for the offence of murder. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. P. LAKSHMI REDDY ti. La LAKSHMI REDDY (JAGANNADHADAS, B. P. SrNHA and JAFER IMAM, JJ. ) Adverse Possession-Possession of co-heir, when adverse,- Ottster-Possession of Receiver pendente lite, if can be tacked.
V died an infant in 1927 and H, an agnatic relation, filed a suit for the recovery of the properties belonging · to V which were in the possession of third parties, on the ground that he was the sole nearest male agnate entitled to all the properties. During the pendency of the suit a Receiver was appointed for the pro- · pcrties in February, 1928. The suit having been decreed H obtained possession of the properties from the Receiver on Janu- ary 20, 1930, and after his death in 1936, his nephew, the appel- lant, got into possession as H's heir. On October 23, 1941, -the respondent brought the present suit for the recovery of a one- third share of the properties from the appellant on the footing that he and his brother were agnatic relations of V of the same degree as H, that all the three were equal co-heirs of V and that I-I obtained the decree and got into possession on behalf of all the co-heirs.
The appellant resisted the suit and contended that the respondent lost his right by the adverse possession of H and his successor and that for this purpose not only the period from January 20, 1930, to October 23, 1941, was to be counted but also the prior period when the Receiver was in possession of the pro- perties during the pendency of H's suit. It was found that the respondent's case that H o'btained the decree and got possession from the Receiver on behalf of the other co-heirs was not true : Held, that the respondent did not lose his right by adverse posses~ion. Even assuming that H's possession from January 20, 1930, was adverse and amounted to ouster of the other co-heirs, such adverse possession was not adequate in time to displace the title of the respondent and the period during which the Receiver was in possession could not be added, because (I) the Receiver's Kalua "· The Stat1 ef U1tar Pradesh Imam]. De&1mbtr, 5.
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.