Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(All) 140

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Mahesh Kumar – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1294 of 1986
Decided On : 19-01-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : A.C. Nigam, Ashok Kumar Sharma
For the Respondents: A.G.A.

The contested evidence and intent are sufficient to establish guilt under Section 307 IPC, notwithstanding deficiencies in investigation.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 307 - Attempt to murder - Conviction under Section 307 IPC upheld, sentencing the appellant to four years rigorous imprisonment - Complainant shot at after demanding money - Two injuries from a single gunshot dismissed as insufficient ground for doubt - Witnesses confirmed the incident - Defects in investigation noted, but not sufficient to affect prosecution's case - Conviction based on independent evidence and medical report. (Paras 13, 18, 20, 24)

(B) Eyewitness Testimony - Primary witnesses corroborated complainant's account, asserting the intent to kill - Firearm injuries confirmed by medical testimony - Defective investigation does not negate evidence. (Paras 24, 26)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for attempting to murder the complainant, who was shot after declining a demand for money. Witnesses supported the complainant’s version, despite some witnesses turning hostile. Key evidence included medical reports corroborating the nature of the injuries.

Findings of Court:
The appellant’s conviction was based on consistent testimonies of eyewitnesses and medical evidence, disregarding investigation flaws as minor. The court found no merit in defense arguments.

Issues: Whether the evidence suffices to uphold a conviction under Section 307 IPC, despite claimed inconsistencies in witness testimonies and flaws in the investigation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that the presence of intent and the act of causing injury were sufficient to establish an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC, irrespective of whether the injuries were grievous or dangerous to life.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Table of Content
1. allegations leading to conviction (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. challenges to prosecution's evidence (Para 8 , 9)
3. prosecution's rebuttal and evidence support (Para 10 , 11)
4. legal standards and definitions under section 307 ipc (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 20)
5. evidence supporting conviction (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
6. defective investigation does not invalidate strong evidence (Para 18 , 19 , 24)
7. impact of investigation flaws on prosecution's case (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
8. court's validation of trial court's findings (Para 25 , 26)
9. final verdict and dismissal of appeal (Para 27)

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

1. Appellant-Mahesh Kumar is aggrieved against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.5.1986 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 270/M of 1985, arising out of Case Crime No. 152 of 1985, under Section 307 I.P.C., registered at Police Station Babupurwa, District Kanpur Nagar, whereby he stands convicted and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment.

2. The facts in brief are that the complainant-Ram Pal s/o Ram Dev gave a written complaint on 13.4.1985, to Station House Officer Police Station Babupurwa, wherein he alleged that today at 6:30 am when he left home for work, Mahesh Kumar s/o Late Basant Lal r/o House No. 130/70, Bagahi asked for Rs.500/- from him, and on his refusal, he fired at him with a country made pistol. The gun shot fired at him from a distance of five steps hit in chest and left hand, and this incident was witnessed by Munni Lal, Gokul Prasad and other residents of the colony. Broadly, on these allegations, F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No. 152 of 1985 was registered against the accused for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.

3. After registration of the F.I.R., the investigation in the case was conducted by Investigating Officer namely, S.N. Pandey, Sub Inspector who recorded the statements of witnesses namely, Chandrika Singh, Jagdish Pandey, Uttam Lal, Jata Shankar, Munni Lal and also recorded the supplementary statement of complainant-Ram Pal. During investigation, the injury report was collected and the site plan was also prepared. The statements of other formal witnesses were also recorded and finally the charge sheet was filed against the accused under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. thereby sending him to face prosecution for commission of offence of attempt to murder.

4. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and vide order dated 16.8.1985 the charges against the accused were framed for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. The appellant-accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused had examined seven witnesses namely, Gokul Prasad (P.W.-1), Jagdish Pandey (P.W.-2), Ram Pal-injured (P.W.-3), Chandrika Singh (P.W.-4), Munni Lal (P.W.-5), S.N. Pandey-Investigating Officer (P.W.-6) and Dr. J.P. Singh (P.W.-7). Besides, the prosecution also adduced documentary evidence i.e. written complaint (Exb.Ka-1), site plan (Exb.Ka-2), charge sheet (Exb.Ka-3), check report (Exb.Ka-4), copy of G.D. No. 24 (Exb.Ka-5) and medical report (Exb.Ka-6), which were proved by the relevant witnesses Ram Pal-injured (P.W.-3), Investigating Officer- S.N. Pandey (P.W.-6) and Dr. J.P. Sigh (P.W.-7).

6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused-appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 22.11.1985, who denied the prosecution evidence and explained that one Brajmohan was murdered at his shop and in this regard, he had given a report to the police, but as his evidence was not to the liking of the police, therefore, police got annoyed and falsely implicated him in this case. No evidence was adduced by the accused-appellant in defence.

7. Upon analysing the prosecution case, evidence and other material on record, the trial court proceeded to convict the appellant-accused under Section 307 I.P.C. and s