Wedding Gunfire Clears Attempt-to-Murder Hurdle: Gujarat HC Drops Serious Charge

In a ruling blending cultural customs with criminal intent, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad has quashed charges under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) against six individuals accused of firing shots in the air during a wedding reception. Delivered by Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar on April 24, 2026, the decision emphasizes that festive traditions without harmful intent don't equate to grave crimes. While Arms Act violations persist, this carve-out offers relief to the applicants, including relatives of a local bootlegger.

From Festive Joy to FIR: The Triggering Events

The saga began on February 16, 2015, at a reception in Cantonment Hall for the son of Kishorsinh Rathod, a declared bootlegger in Ahmedabad's Shahibaug area. Guests, including applicant No. 3—Kishorsinh @ Langdo Lalsinh Rathod, who held a valid arms license (No. 7/202 from Mansa)—allegedly fired revolvers and pistols skyward in celebration, a purported custom of the Darbar community.

Shahibaug Police registered FIR II-CR No. 3097/2015 on April 21, 2015, invoking Sections 307, 201, and 114 IPC , plus Sections 3 and 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act . A charge-sheet followed, committing the case as Sessions Case No. 122/2017 to the Principal Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural. The accused sought discharge under Section 227 CrPC , arguing no intent to harm, but the sessions court rejected it on August 31, 2018, citing the bootlegger's antecedents. This prompted the revision petition under Sections 397/401 CrPC .

Accused Plead Custom, Prosecution Stands on Risk

The applicants, represented by advocates including Mr. Divyang A. Joshi for Mr. Kishan Prajapati, contended that aerial firing was harmless tradition, not murder attempt. Accused No. 3's licensed firearm negated Arms Act breaches entirely, and without injury or targeting, Section 307 lacked foundation—mere possibility of misfire was speculation.

The State, via Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohan Raval, likely leaned on the sessions court's view: the bootlegger's history and group firing signaled danger, justifying trial. Reports noted the judge's reliance on these factors in denying discharge.

Decoding Intent: Why Skyward Shots Miss the Murder Mark

Justice Suthar dissected Section 307 IPC , clarifying that while injury isn't mandatory, "intention is required to be established from the attending circumstances." Wedding context, licensed weapon, and community custom painted a picture of exuberance, not assault. "Merely under anticipation that there was possibility to cause injury to anyone in case of misfire, is nothing but only presumption and assumption," the court held, demanding "legal evidence" for trial.

No precedents were cited, but the ruling draws on core principles: acts must objectively show homicidal intent. It distinguishes celebratory firing from targeted threats, preserving Arms Act scrutiny for unlicensed or improper use.

As echoed in legal coverage, "Firing In Air During Wedding Without Intention To Cause Injury Not Enough To Constitute Attempt To Murder Charge," underscoring the verdict's clarity.

Key Observations from the Bench

"Merely opening fire in air in pursuance of customary process of Darbar community without there being any intention to hurt anyone, this Court is of considered opinion that case under Section 307 of the IPC is not made out."

"To make out a case under Section 307 of the IPC, injury is not required but intention is required to be established from the attending circumstances and if we consider the surrounding circumstances amongst others, the act on the part of accused is not enough to infer the intention."

"Without any intention, only to open fire in air without any intention to cause injury does not amount to attempt to murder."

Partial Victory: Charges Sliced, Trial Continues

The revision was "partly allowed." The sessions court's order stands quashed solely for Section 307 IPC ; Arms Act and other IPC sections endure. "Rule is hereby made absolute to the aforesaid extent only," with records returned.

This nuanced outcome safeguards cultural practices from overreach while upholding arms regulations. Future cases may cite it to dismiss inflated charges in festive settings, provided intent remains absent— a balanced safeguard in India's vibrant traditions.