Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.
Sushil Phari – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. - 19 of 2000
Decided On : 05-12-2023
FIREARM INJURY - Criminal Law - Section 307 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act - The judgment discusses the failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injured sustained a firearm injury. The court highlights the lack of forensic evidence, contradictions in witness statements, and the doubtful recovery memo. The court emphasizes the necessity of proving the intention or knowledge of causing death under Section 307 IPC and cites relevant case law to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellant fired at the police team, causing injury to the Station House Officer. However, the defense claimed that the appellant was falsely implicated and no such incident took place.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the injured sustained a firearm injury. It highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of forensic evidence, and doubtful recovery memo. The court emphasized the necessity of proving the intention or knowledge of causing death under Section 307 IPC.
Issues: Failure to prove firearm injury, inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of forensic evidence, and doubtful recovery memo.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must establish the intention or knowledge of causing death under Section 307 IPC. The court emphasized the necessity of proving the injury as a firearm injury and cited relevant case law to support its decision.
Final Decision: The judgment and order convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC and sentencing him to imprisonment are set aside. The appeal stands allowed, and the accused is set free.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Ram Mohan Mishra, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Alok Tiwari, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.
2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 03.01.2000 passed by Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Bareli in S.T. No.181 of 1998 and 182 of 1998 arising out of Case Crime No.255 of 1997, Police Station Bachhrawan, District Rae Bareli whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2,000/-and in default of making payment of fine, appellant would further undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment.
3. Prosecution is that on 09.12.1997 at around 05:40 pm in Kasba Bachhrawan, P.S. Bachhrawan, District Rae Bareli, Station House Officer F.S. Jafri who was patrolling along with Constable Triyugi Narain Mishra and Constable Mahesh Singh on Bachhrawan chauraha came to know through a secret informer that appellant-Sushil Phari who is a dreaded robber and has committed several incidents of robbery in Allahabad, Lucknow and Kanpur is present on Bachhrawan bus stop to perform yet another heinous offence along with his companion and if acted promptly, he can be caught. Believing on this information, the police officials along with informer reached at Bachhrawan bus stop at 05:40 pm and on the signal of informer as soon as the police team proceeded forward, appellant-accused by exhorting the police team with intention to kill started firing on the Station House Officer. The police party ran to catch him then accused ran towards Lucknow by making indiscriminate firing in the Bachhrawan bazar. Station House Officer, F.S. Jafri received bullet injury on his face but without being disturbed, the police party at a distance of 100 yards caught the accused. From the accused one country made pistol of 12 bore and two empty cartridges of 12 bore were recovered which were taken into possession by the police. Two live cartridges were also recovered from the right pocket of the jacket worn by the accused. Due to this incident, there was stampede in the Bachhrawan bazar and traffic got disturbed. The accused failed to show the license. He was arrested and fard of recovered articles i.e. country made pistol and cartridges was prepared on the spot i.e. Ex.ka-1. Chik F.I.R. (Ex.ka-5) was lodged on the same day at 19:15 hours and Case Crime No.255/1997, under Section 307 IPC was registered along with Case Crime No.256/1997, under Section 25 Arms Act which was mentioned in the general diary Rapat No.32 dated 09.12.1997 at 19:15 hours, the carbon copy is Ex.ka-6. The injured F.S. Jafri was examined at PHC Bachhrawan on 09.12.1997 at 09:00 pm. The following injury was found on his person:-
“Examined Sri F.S. Jafri aged 37 years S/o Late A.S. Jafri R/o Station Officer (S.O.) Bachhrawan, Rae Bareli at 09:00 pm on 09.12.1997 B/B Self
M.I.: A raiseel blackish brown mole on right side forehead 1.6 cm above right eyebrow.
Injuries:-(1) Lacerated wound 1.0 cm X .5 cm X muscle deep on left side forehead, 1.0 cm above left eye brow. Advised X-ray skull for presence of pellet.
(2) Abrasion .4 cm X .5 cm on the left side forehead, 2.5 cm above the injury No.1.
Opinion:-All the injuries are fresh, injury No.1 is kept under observation and advised x-ray cause of injury No.1 is K.U.O. and rest are caused by friction against hard and rough object.”
The injury report is Ex.ka-8. The injuries were fresh and were kept under observation and x-ray was advised. The Investigating Officer, Gaya Prasad Mishra conducted the investigation who after completing the formalities prepared the site plan Ex.ka-2 took the statements of the prosecution witnesses and filed the charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC, Ex.ka-3 and charge-sheet under Section 25 Arms Act Ex.ka-4. The sanction for prosecution was taken by the Magistrate under Section 39 Arms Act which is Ex.ka-7. The charges under Section 307 IPC were framed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
AI
Minor injuries do not negate culpability for attempt to commit murder; intention inferred from actions and circumstances surrounding the act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of intention or knowledge in determining the nature of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C., and the court's emphasis on the la....
The court emphasized that a single credible witness's testimony is sufficient for conviction, even with investigative lapses, provided it establishes the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt.
The conviction for attempted murder under Section 307 IPC was upheld based on eyewitness accounts, while the charge under the Arms Act was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
The court affirmed conviction for attempted murder while reducing the sentence due to mitigating circumstances, highlighting scrutiny of evidence in violent crime cases and the need for direct corrob....
The intention to cause death and the sufficiency of the acts to cause death in the ordinary course of nature are essential elements of the offense of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the IPC. C....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution successfully proved the case under Section 307 I.P.C against the convict appellant beyond reasonable doubt, based on the natur....
The contested evidence and intent are sufficient to establish guilt under Section 307 IPC, notwithstanding deficiencies in investigation.
Attempt to murder – Intention to kill must be apparent from act of accused.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
