Penal Code, 1860 – s. 307 – Attempt to murder – Prosecution case that appellants armed with knives and lathis inflicted injuries to the victims – Registration of FIR by complainant to whom the incident was narrated later – Trial court acquitted the appellant and his co-accused, however, the High Court sentenced the appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and upheld acquittal of other two accused – Correctness:
Held: Conviction u/s. 307 may be justified only if the accused possessed intent coupled with some overt act in aid of its execution – Ascertaining the intention to kill or having the knowledge that death may be caused as a result of the overt act, is a question of fact and hinges on the unique circumstances that each case may present – Chain of evidence proffered by the prosecution has to be as complete as is humanly possible and it does not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must instead, indicate that the act had indeed been singularly committed by the accused only – On facts, having analysed the evidence on record, there are several gaps in the prosecution story – Prosecution story has been demolished by the oral testimonies of the witnesses, including the medical experts, coupled with the contents of the FIR registered by a hearsay witness – There is no motive attributed to the appellant or his co-accused in order to justify their conviction u/s.
307 – It is not even the prosecution’s case that this was a chance occurrence – High Court ought to have given due weightage to the glaring inconsistencies, before reversing a well-reasoned order of acquittal – When the trial court has acquitted the accused based on a plausible understanding of the evidence, and such finding is not marred by perversity or due to overlooking or misreading of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the High Court ought not to overturn such an order of acquittal – Trial court, after reviewing the entire evidence on record, was correct in concluding that the totality of circumstances casts doubt on the alleged incident and suggests that the prosecution witnesses may have concealed the actual story – Thus, not safe to convict the appellant on the basis of such laconic evidence – Appellant is acquitted – Order of conviction by the High Court set aside, and that of the trial court restored in so far as the appellant is concerned. [Paras 7, 9, 14-17]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 2 SCC 333; Ballu@Balram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Crl. Appeal No. 1167.2018.. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.