When Can Appellate Courts Interfere with Convictions Based on Doubtful Evidence in Attempt to Murder Cases?

The Jharkhand High Court allowed appeals and set aside convictions under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act, holding that in the presence of material contradictions, unreliable identification due to darkness, absence of corroborative medical and forensic evidence, and unproven roles of accused, courts must acquit if reasonable doubt exists. The judgment upholds established precedent on proof beyond reasonable doubt and provides binding guidance for evaluating evidence in serious criminal cases.

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• Reiterates that conviction in serious offences like attempt to murder cannot be based solely on interested or inconsistent witness testimony, especially when independent corroboration and recovery evidence are absent.
• Clarifies the necessity for courts to scrutinize contradictions and lack of corroborating forensic/medical evidence rigorously.
• Establishes that identification of accused in conditions of doubtful visibility (e.g., dark night) without corroborative support undermines prosecution’s case.
• Highlights that recovery of weapon or blood-stained articles and reliable injury reports are crucial for sustaining conviction under Section 307 or Arms Act.
• Emphasizes that all benefit of reasonable doubt must go to the accused; where prosecution is shrouded in serious discrepancies, acquittal is warranted.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

• The Court closely examined the testimonies of all prosecution witnesses, noting that except the informant (PW-4), there were no credible eye-witnesses; others were either hearsay, related, or contradicted by the record.
• It was observed that the informant’s ability to identify assailants was doubtful owing to the dark night and lack of light at the place of occurrence.
• Medical evidence lacked corroboration: no weapon or pellets were recovered, medical and discharge reports were unconvincing, and injury reports did not definitively support the prosecution version.
• The Court gave weight to material contradictions and discrepancies among prosecution witnesses about timing, identity, and circumstances.
• The absence of forensic evidence such as blood-stained earth or seized articles was considered fatal to the prosecution.
• Identification and naming of accused in the FIR was found possibly influenced by related witnesses and not originating from the informant himself.
• The Court underscored the core principle that conviction can only be based on evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and in cases beset with such doubts, accused must be given benefit and acquitted.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellants):

• No specific role attributed to accused except “helping” main accused; lack of concrete evidence showing involvement.
• Overt act or common intention of co-accused not established.
• Old enmity suggested motive to falsely implicate one accused.
• No recovery of firearm or pellets or incriminating material from place of occurrence.
• Sole reliance on informant’s testimony; other witnesses were related/tutored and testimonies contradicted each other.
• Absence of blood or light at the place of incident; identification was improbable in darkness.
• Investigating Officer failed to seize or record essential evidence; verdict based on misappreciation by trial court.

Respondent (State):

• Trial court thoroughly and properly considered all aspects and evidence.
• Testimony of injured/informant (PW-4) was undisputed; two firearm injuries on a vital part of the body indicated intention/knowledge for attempt to murder.
• No error of law in trial court judgment; no justification for appellate interference.

Factual Background

On the night of 01.11.2000, the informant Mahavir Pandey was allegedly shot and injured by the accused while returning home, purportedly in retaliation for his father’s testimony against the accused in another case. The incident led to registration of FIR under several IPC sections and the Arms Act. 17 prosecution witnesses were examined during trial, but only the informant claimed to have witnessed the incident directly. Others were either hearsay, related, or provided inconsistent accounts. The medical and forensic evidence failed to conclusively establish the prosecution story. The trial court convicted the accused, which was appealed to the High Court.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder): The Court examined whether the prosecution established requisite intent, overt-acts, and caused injuries amounting to attempt to murder. Lack of clear evidence or corroborative forensic proof weighed against conviction.
• Section 27 Arms Act: The Court evaluated whether use, recovery, and identification of the alleged weapon was established beyond reasonable doubt. Absence of recovery and medical discrepancy undercut charges.
• Sections 147, 148, 149 IPC (Unlawful Assembly etc.): Originally invoked, but substantive findings were under 307/34 IPC and Arms Act.
• Cr.P.C. (Section 34): The Court scrutinized the supposed common intention and participation of co-accused.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment. The order is by both judges (Division Bench) concurring in result and reasoning.

Procedural Innovations

No new procedural rules or guidelines were announced or implied in this judgment.

Alert Indicators

• ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment reinforces settled law that conviction must be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious criminal charges, aligning with established criminal jurisprudence.