Absence of Grievous Injury or Weapon Recovery Fails to Negate Intent for Conviction Under Section 307 IPC

On 15.10.2009, following a dispute over a road blockage, nine accused persons, armed with lathis, axes, and a country-made pistol, assaulted the victims

Nirbhay Singh sustained a gunshot injury to his thigh, while other victims suffered head injuries from blunt and sharp weapons

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 148, 324/149, and 323/149 of the IPC, but acquitted them of Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act

The accused appealed their conviction (CRA 1376/2017), while the victims appealed against the acquittal under Section 307 (CRA 10086/2025)

During pendency, accused Mardam Singh died, leading to the abatement of the case against him

1. Whether the non-recovery of the weapon or lack of a definitive ballistic opinion is fatal to a conviction when reliable ocular evidence of a gunshot injury exists

2. Whether the act of firing a gunshot intending to cause injury constitutes an "attempt to murder" under Section 307 IPC regardless of the nature of the injury sustained

3. Whether the acquittal from the Arms Act charges was justified due to procedural lapses and discrepancies in firearm bore descriptions

The Court applied Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding attempt to murder, Section 149 IPC regarding common object, and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act

establishing that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction if ocular evidence is credible [Rakesh v. State of U.P. (2021)]

Following State of M.P. v. Kanha (2019) and State of M.P. v. Saleem (2005), the Court held that for Section 307, the determinative factor is the intention or knowledge of the act, not the gravity of the injury

The Court found the Trial Court's acquittal under Section 307 IPC erroneous

It reasoned that while the Arms Act acquittal was justified due to significant bore discrepancies (.32 vs .38) and lack of proper seal/sanction proof, the criminal liability for the assault remained.

The Court observed that the testimony of seven injured victims was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence confirming a surgically removed bullet from Nirbhay Singh

Applying the precedent that gunshot fire inherently demonstrates an intent or knowledge sufficient for Section 307, the Court determined that the accused acted with a common object to kill

Minor clerical errors in medical reports (right vs. left thigh) were deemed insufficient to discard the prosecution's core case

Accused Madhav Singh is convicted under Section 307 IPC; the remaining seven surviving accused are convicted under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC

Each is sentenced to 5 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000

The convictions under Sections 148 and 323/149 were upheld, while the acquittal under the Arms Act was maintained