Back
Allahabad High Court Acquits Three Under Section 307 IPC Citing in Prosecution Case
In a significant judgment that underscores the importance of a coherent and consistent prosecution narrative, the set aside the conviction of three accused under . Justice Subhash Vidyarthi allowed two criminal appeals challenging the trial court's order, which had sentenced Mohd Kamil @ Guddu, Aarif Ali @ Aarif, and Abdul Rauf to seven years' rigorous imprisonment for attempted murder.
The Case That Unraveled
The case originated from an incident on , in Lakhimpur Kheri. The complainant, Subarati, alleged that when he intervened in a quarrel between his children and those of the accused, the three men fired at him with country-made pistols, causing pellet injuries to his face, neck, and chest. Based on this, an FIR was lodged, and after trial, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted all three.
However, the High Court found the prosecution's case riddled with "" that cast on .
A Web of Contradictions
The court meticulously dissected the evidence and pointed out several glaring inconsistencies.
The Genesis of the Quarrel: The FIR stated that the quarrel was between the children of the complainant and the accused Rauf. But the complainant (PW-1) admitted in cross-examination that Rauf had no children. The investigating officer (PW-3) gave a different version — that the dispute arose because Rauf's buffalo damaged the complainant's tatiya (bamboo fence). However, the complainant's brother (PW-5) claimed the accused had no cattle. These contradictions, the court noted, made the foundation of the prosecution story "completely unreliable."
Impossible Firing:
The site plan (Exhibit A-3) showed the accused firing from inside a room, with the complainant 22 steps away. Yet the wall had no door or window, and the house was surrounded by 10-foot-high boundary walls on all sides. The court observed:
"It appears impossible that all three appellants could have fired at the complainant from inside a room with no opening in the relevant direction."
vs. : The complainant claimed he bled profusely and collapsed. But the investigating officer found no blood at the spot, and no blood-stained clothes were produced. The medical report noted "blackening" around the injuries, which, as the doctor (PW-4) explained, occurs only from close-range firing — a fact difficult to reconcile with the prosecution's claim that shots were fired from 55–60 feet away.
The Unexplained Injuries on the Accused
One of the most telling points was the failure of the prosecution to explain the four injuries sustained by appellant Aarif during the incident. The investigating officer confirmed that Aarif had been medically examined and had suffered lacerated wounds, a contusion, and swelling — injuries consistent with a beating by sticks.
The trial court had rejected the doctor's testimony on this point, noting that no FIR was lodged from the accused's side and that they did not mention the injuries in their statements under Section 313 CrPC. The High Court found this reasoning "contrary to law."
The Section 313 CrPC Error
Justice Vidyarthi clarified:
"The trial Court has acted in ignorance of the position of law that it is the duty of the Court to put questions to the accused under
and the accused is not required to give a narration of the story. In case no question was put to the accused on any aspect of the matter, no
can be drawn against him."
Since the trial court had not questioned Aarif about his injuries, it could not use his silence against him. The prosecution's gave rise to a that the complainant's side might have been the aggressor.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The court relied on the 's in Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra (2025) that the primary burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt , and that the defence need only create a doubt by .
Justice Vidyarthi concluded:
"A cumulative reading of the evidence on record reveals that the prosecution's version suffers from several which cast a on the very genesis and manner of the alleged occurrence."
The Verdict
The High Court allowed both appeals, set aside the conviction, and acquitted all three appellants. The court directed their release on furnishing personal bonds under to ensure their availability if the State appeals to the .
The court refrained from deciding the issue of juvenility raised by Mohd Kamil @ Guddu, observing that it had become academic after the acquittal.
This judgment serves as a powerful reminder that the prosecution must present a consistent and credible case, and that the failure to explain injuries on the accused can fatally undermine the prosecution's narrative.
