Absence of medical evidence and injury reports renders a conviction for attempt to murder unsustainable.

The informant (PW 5) alleged that on 02.01.1997, the appellants took him to an orchard where Appellant No. 1 (Anuj Singh) demanded ₹200.

Upon refusal, Appellant No. 2 (Ramesh Kumar) handed a pistol to Anuj Singh, who shot PW 5 in the chest

PW 5 was treated at Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, and a fardbeyan was recorded on 04.01.1997, leading to an FIR

The Trial Court convicted both appellants under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing them to ten years and three years of rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

1. Whether the trial Court was right in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 307 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act?

2. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellants for the said offences beyond reasonable doubt?

The Court applied Section 307 (Attempt to murder) and Section 34 (Common intention) of the IPC, alongside Section 27 of the Arms Act

It relied on Kalika Tiwari v. State of Bihar regarding the recognition of accused persons by villagers in low light

Satrughan Singh v. State of Bihar, which established that "intention" under Section 307 must be inferred from the nature of the weapon, seat of injury, severity of the assault, and medical evidence

The court also emphasized the necessity of proving the injury through medical testimony to satisfy the ingredients of Section 307 IPC

the incident occurred at 7:30 PM in January (winter darkness), and the informant failed to establish any source of light (e.g., flashlights or lamps) that would allow for the identification of specific acts, such as the passing of the weapon

there was an unexplained two-day delay in lodging the FIR, which the prosecution failed to justify

the medical evidence was non-existent; the prosecution failed to examine the treating physician or exhibit the injury report, making it impossible to determine the nature or severity of the wound

the Investigating Officer (PW 6) found no bloodstains or incriminating materials at the place of occurrence and failed to recover any weapon

the Court found the testimony of the informant’s relatives (PWs 1, 2, and 4) to be hearsay, as they were not eye-witnesses to the shooting

The Court answered both issues in the negative, finding that the absence of medical evidence, the unexplained delay in the FIR, and the lack of visibility at the scene vitiated the conviction.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 21.07.2004 was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges