Pirkovac trial: expert says rifle was not pressed to chest

The High Court in Nis resumed proceedings on Monday against 82-year-old Lj. T. from Pirkovac near Svrljig, charged with shooting dead his neighbour J. M. (80) with a hunting rifle on August 28, 2025. The hearing was reserved for the testimony of a forensic medical expert from the Institute of Forensic Medicine in Nis, and that testimony went straight at the core of the defence case.

The expert described the through-and-through wound to the victim’s chest and, asked about firing distance, was unambiguous: the muzzle was not resting against the body. According to his finding, the shot was fired from what forensic practice calls the boundary between relative close range and relative distance, meaning a gap that rules out a contact shot.

The distinction is not a technicality. From the outset, the defence has argued that the two elderly men wrestled over a Mauser hunting rifle and that the weapon went off by accident during the struggle. That version assumes the bodies were in direct contact. The expert finding points the other way.

What the expert said about firing distance

A shot fired at point-blank range normally leaves a dense pattern of gunpowder residue on clothing and skin, known as tattooing. Here, only two particles were recovered from the victim’s shirt. The expert attributed the thin trace to the condition in which the body was found: decomposition was advanced and late-August temperatures were high, so part of the evidence was lost for good.

The defence tried to draw the opposite conclusion from the same fact, arguing that so few particles cannot support a reliable reconstruction. The court rejected a request for a fresh psychiatric evaluation of the accused, but signalled it would consider repeating the ballistic examination, which could stretch out the case.

The accused stuck to the account he has given since day one. He told the court he had not spoken to his neighbour for 25 years and that relations between the two families had been bad for half a century. A neighbourly feud in a village of only a few dozen permanent residents has become the backbone of a case involving the gravest criminal charge on the books.

Why do two gunpowder particles matter so much?

Because, alongside the distance finding, they are the only physical trace capable of confirming or breaking the account of a struggle. Had the rifle discharged while both men were holding it, investigators would expect heavier residue and a different wound channel angle. If the shot was fired from roughly a metre and a half or more, the accidental-discharge version loses its footing.

Alongside the killing, the accused also faces a charge of illegal possession of a weapon. The basic murder offence carries five to 15 years in prison, and the hunting rifle has been seized as evidence. Because of the defendant’s age and health, hearings have been spaced out, so the case has run for nearly a year since the shooting.

The next hearing is scheduled for August 4. The court is expected to rule on the request for a new ballistic examination and to hear the remaining witnesses from the village. Until a final verdict, the accused is presumed innocent and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.

Should courts automatically order an independent ballistic examination whenever physical traces on the body have been degraded?