The court upheld the conviction for attempted murder, establishing that the use of a firearm in a public setting demonstrates intent to cause harm, regardless of the actual target's identity.

1. By way of the present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated 20.02.2020 and the order on sentence dated 28.02.2020, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, North-West District, Rohini, Delhi, in SC No. 53524/2016 arising out of FIR No. 565/2008 registered under Section 307 at P.S. Mangol Puri. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant, and charges under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 (1-B)(a) and 27 Arms Act were subsequently framed, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

Vide the impugned order on sentence, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years alongwith fine of Rs.80,000/-, in default whereof he was directed to undergo RI for 6 months, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC ; RI for a period of 3 years alongwith fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default whereof he was directed to undergo RI for 3 months, for the offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act; and RI for a period of 2 years alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof he was directed to undergo RI for 2 months, for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1-B)(a) Arms Act. All sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant.

2. Pithily put, the prosecution’s case is that on the night of 12.11.2008, during a wedding reception, a quarrel took place between the appellant and one Deshraj; following the altercation, outside the venue, the appellant pulled out a country-made pistol (katta) and pointed it at Deshraj, whereupon Deshraj pushed the appellant’s hand, causing a jerk that led the bullet to strike one Rajan instead, who was standing nearby. The injured Rajan was taken to the hospital by one of the eyewitnesses, Jai Prakash, who also informed the police. On the basis of his statement, the concerned FIR No. 565/2008 was registered at P.S. Mangol Puri.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined a total of 20 witnesses in support of its case. The injured Rajan was examined as PW-4. Three eyewitnesses, Deshraj, Jai Prakash and Narender, were examined as PW-3, PW-8 and PW-11 respectively. The MLC of the injured was proved by Dr. P. C. Prabhakar (PW-7) and Dr. Nishant Bisht (PW-9), and his discharge summary was proved by Dr. Shantanu Mandal (PW-12). The ballistics report was proved by Sh. V. R. Anand, Assistant Director, FSL, who was examined as PW-13. The case property, and the alleged weapon of offence—a country-made pistol, were recovered and proved through the testimonies of Inspector Ajay Karan (PW-16), Ct. Rajeev (PW-17) and ASI Raj Kumar (PW-18). Opinion regarding the nature of the injury and the weapon was given by Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-19) and Dr. Indermeet Singh (PW-20). The rest were formal witnesses who deposed as to various aspects of the investigation. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he pleaded innocence and stated that he had absconded out of fear and was falsely implicated by the police as a result. No defence evidence was led on behalf of the appellant.

4. Ms. Rashmi Chopra, the learned senior counsel appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the appellant, submits that the recovery of the weapon is wholly unreliable. She points out that it was effected pursuant to the appellant’s third disclosure statement, from an open plot adjoining an NDPL Sub-Station that remains guarded 24×7, without any independent public witness to corroborate it. It is further submitted that there is no forensic evidence linking the recovered weapon to the alleged firing, as the FSL report was inconclusive wit