1. Assault with knives and lathis — Conviction under Section 307, IPC — Appeal against reversal of acquittal by High Court. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 716
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, DIPANKAR DATTA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Raju and Another – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1151 of 2010
Decided on : 31-07-2024
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR, Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Advitiya Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR, Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Advitiya Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Attempt to murder – Conviction under Section 307 of IPC may be justified only if accused in question possessed intent coupled with some overt act in aid of its execution – Ascertaining intention to kill or having knowledge that death may be caused as a result of overt act, is a question of fact and hinges on unique circumstances that each case may present.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 307 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 109] – Attempt to murder – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Conviction under Section 307 of IPC may be justified only if accused in question possessed intent coupled with some overt act in aid of its execution – Ascertaining intention to kill or having knowledge that death may be caused as a result of overt act, is a question of fact and hinges on unique circumstances that each case may present – There is not even a whisper about alleged eyewitnesses joining investigation – Deafening absence of two alleged eyewitnesses has considerably weakened prosecution case – There are glaring interludes which severely enfeeble case that prosecution sought to present – Prosecution story has been demolished by oral testimonies of witnesses including medical experts, coupled with contents of FIR registered by a hearsay witness – There is no motive attributed to Appellant or his co-accused, in order to justify their conviction under Section 307 of IPC – High Court ought to have given due weightage to glaring inconsistencies, before reversing a well-reasoned order of acquittal – It is quite unsafe to convict Appellant on the basis of such laconic evidence – Order of conviction by High Court set aside and that of Trial Court restored in so far as Appellant concerned. (Paras 7, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Usually in matters involving criminality, discrepancies are bound to be there in account given by a witness, especially when there is conspicuous disparity between date of incident and time of deposition – However, if discrepancies are such that they create serious doubt on veracity of a witness, then Court may deduce and decline to rely on such evidence – This is especially true when there are variations in evidence tendered by prosecution witnesses regarding sequence of events as they have occurred – Courts must exercise all the more care and conscientiousness when such oral evidence may lean towards falsely implicating innocent persons. (Para 13)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 419] – Appeal against acquittal – When Trial Court has acquitted accused based on a plausible understanding of evidence and such finding is not marred by perversity or due to overlooking or misreading of evidence presented by prosecution, High Court ought not to overturn such order of acquittal. (Para 16)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeal is directed against judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, whereby judgment and order dated 13.10.1995 of Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Dehradun was substantially set aside and Appellant was convicted under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
Findings of Court:
Accused and alleged victims were familiar with each other and had some kind of association. There is more to this than meets the eye, and we are not entirely convinced of narrative presented and perceived by prosecution.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenges reversal of acquittal citing evidentiary contradictions and lack of eyewitnesses — State asserts intent to kill based on witness testimony and medical reports. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
3. Prosecution case weakened by contradictory testimonies, disparity between medical evidence and oral accounts, absence of key eyewitnesses, and lack of motive. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 )
4. Conviction under Section 307, IPC requires intent and overt act; High Court should not overturn a plausible acquittal unless the finding is perverse. (Para 7 , 13 , 14 , 16 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction under Section 307, IPC set aside — Trial Court's order of acquittal restored. (Para 17 , 18 )
6. What are the essential requirements for a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC?
A conviction under Section 307 of the IPC is justified only if the accused possessed the intent to kill, coupled with an overt act in aid of its execution. Determining such intention or knowledge is a question of fact based on the unique circumstances of each case. (Para 7 )
7. How should courts treat discrepancies in witness testimonies in criminal cases?
While minor discrepancies are common, if variations create serious doubt regarding the veracity of a witness, the court may decline to rely on such evidence, especially to avoid falsely implicating innocent persons. (Para 13 )
8. What is the standard for an appellate court to reverse a Trial Court's order of acquittal?
An appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the Trial Court's finding was based on a plausible understanding of the evidence and is not marred by perversity or the misreading or overlooking of prosecution evidence. (Para 16 )
9. What is the required standard for the chain of evidence in criminal prosecutions?
The chain of evidence proffered by the prosecution must be as complete as humanly possible, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT :
SURYA KANT, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (hereinafter, ‘High Court’) in Appeal No. 1458/2001, whereby the judgment and order dated 13.10.1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Dehradun (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’) in S.T. No. 116/1994 was substantially set aside and the Appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
FACTS:
2. At this juncture, it is essential to outline the factual matrix as described in the FIR to clearly understand the context of the instant appeal.
2.1. On 08.05.1994, Farzan Ali, the Complainant, filed an FIR being Case Crime No. 84/1994 at the Vikasnagar Police Station, Dehradun, recounting the events of the previous night. He reported that his son Imran, along with his friends Mathu, Irfan, and Jakir, had gone for a latenight cinema show in Vikasnagar. On their return around 12:30 a.m., they saw the Appellant and the other accused—Raju, Bhola Ram, Manoj, and Suresh — standing near Gopal's house. The Appellant and Bhola Ram were armed with knives, while Manoj and Suresh were carrying dandas/lathis. The accused were seen in the light of a singular bulb lit in front of Devdutt’s house.
2.2. The FIR states that Mathu and Imran inquired from the accused persons as to why they had assembled there, which allegedly infuriated them and they (accused) started hurling abuses at them and assaulted Imran, Mathu, Irfan and Jakir. Imran and Mathu were attacked with knives and lathis, whereas Irfan and Jakir suffered injuries as they tried to save them. Thereafter, presuming Imran and Mathu to be dead, the accused fled from the place of incidence. The Complainant further detailed that Jakir and Irfan came to his house and narrated the entire incident to him. This formed the basis for the Complaint at Vikasnagar Police Station and the said FIR was registered.
2.3. The investigating officer commenced the investigation, followed by a chargesheet. The Trial Court thereafter framed charges for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC, against the Appellant and the other accused. The Trial Court, evaluated the statements of the prosecution witnesses, sought the medical opinion to be brought on record, analysed the statement of the investigating officer, recorded the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, and decided to acquit the Appellant and his coaccused vide judgment dated 13.10.1995.
2.4. The State felt aggrieved and challenged the acquittal of the Appellant and other accused before the High Court. The High Court, as already mentioned in the opening paragraph, partially allowed the appeal, sentenced the Appellant and one of his coaccused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and confirmed the acquittal of the other two accused.
2.5. We have heard Learned Counsel(s) for the parties at a considerable length and perused the trial record with their able assistance.
CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES
3. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, learned counsel representing the Appellant, while assailing the reversal of acquittal, contended that the High Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record due to which it arrived at an erroneous finding. Mr. Sharma impressed that the Complainant, Farzan, was not an eyewitness to the alleged incident. He admittedly arrived at the scene only after being told about it. Learned counsel highlighted the glaring contradictions between the account provided in the FIR and the testimonies of the witnesses, as recorded by the Trial Court.
4. Mr. Sharma argued that the Trial Court, on the other hand, had considered the absence of discernible evidence to prove that the Appellant and another accused were holding knives and had caused stab injuries. In the same vein, he contended that the testimonies of the injured witnesses an
