Medical Evidence showing 'Metallic Foreign Body' sufficient to prove firearm injury under S.324 IPC even without pellet extraction: Patna High Court reverses acquittal. - 2025-09-30

Patna High Court Overturns Acquittal in Firing Case, Cites 'Gross Error' in Trial Court's Reading of Medical Evidence

Patna, Bihar – In a significant ruling on the appreciation of medical evidence in firearm injury cases, the Patna High Court has reversed a trial court's judgment of acquittal for serious charges, including attempt to murder. A division bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Ashok Kumar Pandey held that X-ray reports showing "multiple metallic foreign bodies" and "pellet like metallic shadows" are sufficient to prove an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even if no pellets were physically extracted or seized.

The High Court convicted the accused-respondents, finding the trial court's decision to acquit them of graver charges was "perversed" and constituted a "gross error" in judgment.

Case Background: A Dispute Over a Balcony Turns Violent

The case originated from a 2005 incident in Bakhtiyarpur, Patna, where a dispute over the construction of a balcony escalated into violence. The appellant, Mahendra Singh, was constructing a balcony (chhajja) on his property when his neighbours, Sone Lal Singh and Jugeshwar Singh, objected, claiming encroachment.

According to the prosecution, the argument led to several members of the opposing family, including Dilip Singh, arriving armed with a double-barrel gun, spears, and sticks. It was alleged that Dilip Singh fired the gun, injuring Mahendra Singh and his son, Rakesh Kumar.

The trial court, while convicting the accused for rioting (Section 148 IPC) and causing simple hurt (Section 323/149 IPC), acquitted them of the more serious charges of attempt to murder (Section 307 IPC) and voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon (Section 324 IPC). The acquittal was primarily based on the grounds that no bullet or pellet was extracted from the victims' bodies and the firearm was never seized.

High Court's Re-Appreciation of Evidence

The appellant, Mahendra Singh, challenged this acquittal before the Patna High Court. His counsel argued that the ocular evidence from the injured witnesses was consistent and fully supported by medical reports, which the trial court had misinterpreted. The respondents maintained that the trial court's findings were sound and that the prosecution had failed to prove the use of a firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.

The High Court undertook a thorough re-examination of the evidence on record and highlighted several key points that the trial court had overlooked:

• Consistent Witness Testimony: The court noted that the injured witnesses (PW-3 and PW-4) gave consistent accounts of the incident, and the defence failed to discredit their testimony.
• Crucial Medical Evidence: The bench heavily criticized the trial court's dismissal of the medical evidence. While the primary health centre doctor (PW-5) had noted seven injuries on the informant and termed them "simple," he had suspiciously "reserved" his opinion on the cause.
• The Decisive X-Ray Report: The High Court found the testimony of the PMCH doctor (PW-8) to be conclusive. This doctor confirmed that X-ray reports of both victims showed "multiple metallic foreign body" and "a radio opaque pellet like metallic shadow," directly corroborating the claim of a firearm attack.

"The learned trial court seems to have committed gross error in appreciating the evidence of the Medical Officer... The view taken by the learned trial court that the Doctor has not supported the prosecution case of firing shot upon the informant and his son Rakesh Kumar seems to be perversed," the bench observed in its judgment.

The court further reasoned that the failure to extract pellets, especially when they are small and lodged in soft tissue without endangering vital organs, does not negate the fact of a firearm injury.

Final Verdict and Conviction

Based on its analysis, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven its case for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt with a dangerous weapon. The Court held:

* The injuries, though simple, were caused by a firearm, which is a dangerous weapon under Section 324 IPC.

* While the single shot from a distance did not indicate a clear intent to kill necessary for a Section 307 conviction, it squarely fell under Section 324.

The High Court, therefore, set aside the acquittal and passed the following order:

* Dilip Singh (Respondent No. 2) , who fired the gun, was convicted under Section 324 IPC .

* Respondents No. 3, 4, 5, and 6 , who were part of the unlawful assembly, were convicted under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC .

The convicted individuals, who were present in court, were immediately taken into custody. This judgment reinforces the principle that courts must meticulously evaluate all forms of evidence, including radiological reports, and cannot dismiss a firearm injury claim solely because the projectile was not physically produced as an exhibit.