Absence of Corroborative Medical Evidence and Ocular Testimony Rebuts Intent to Commit Attempted Murder Under Section 307.

The Appellants challenged the judgment dated 11.03.2014 and sentencing order dated 14.3.2014, whereby they were convicted under Sections 307/34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 31.01.1996, following a dispute over uprooted crops, Appellant No. 3 (Umesh Yadav), upon the orders of Appellant No. 2 (deceased), fired a bullet hitting the informant's (PW4) right paw.

During the pendency of the appeal, Appellant No. 2 died, and the appeal abated against him.

The Appellants contended that there were no eye-witnesses, no recovery of bloodstains or cartridges from the spot, and significant contradictions in the evidence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellants acted with the common intention to commit murder under Section 307/34 IPC.

2. Whether the medical and ocular evidence sufficiently corroborated the allegation of firearm injury to sustain a conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Court applied Section 307 of the IPC, which requires the prosecution to prove a "guilty intention" or knowledge to cause death, accompanied by an overt act moving toward execution.

It relied on the principle that while a life-threatening injury is not mandatory for a Section 307 conviction, the "intention" must be inferred from the nature of the weapon, severity of blows, and surrounding circumstances, as established in *Sivamani v. State* (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1581) and *State of M.P. v. Saleem* (2005).

The Court also applied Section 27 of the Arms Act regarding the illegal use of arms.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide specific evidence against Appellant No. 1, noting only general allegations.

Regarding Appellant No. 3, while it was alleged he fired the weapon, the Court noted that a crucial witness (the informant's brother, Sundar Yadav) was not examined.

Most significantly, the Investigating Officer (PW5) admitted to finding no bloodstains, empty cartridges, or pellets at the place of occurrence, and no seizure list was prepared.

The Court observed that the medical evidence (Ext. 2/1) failed to satisfactorily corroborate the claim that the injury was caused by a firearm in the manner alleged by the prosecution.

Due to these deficiencies in ocular and medical testimony, the Court determined that the requisite "intention to kill" was not established.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.03.2014 and 14.03.2014.

Appellants No. 1 and 3 were acquitted of all charges and discharged from their bail bonds; any fines paid were ordered to be refunded.