Absence of Seized Material Exhibits and Unexplained Delay in FIR Vitiates Conviction Under Section 307 IPC

The appellant, Tony Anthony, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Seraikella, for an incident occurring on May 2, 1999.

The informant (P.W.-6) alleged that the appellant and others arrived at his house, enquired about his brother, assaulted the informant, and fired a shot that passed through the informant’s shirt and hit a wooden door.

The appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of lack of medical evidence, non-recovery of the weapon, and failure to produce the perforated shirt or seized pellet as material exhibits.

1. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence suffers from any error of law requiring interference in the appeal.

2. Whether the prosecution proved the intention to kill under Section 307 of the IPC given the absence of injuries and non-production of material evidence.

The court primarily applied Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding attempt to murder, which requires proof of the intention or knowledge and an act toward the commission of murder.

It also applied Sections 147, 148, 149 (unlawful assembly and rioting), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), and 379 (theft) of the IPC, alongside Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The court relied on the evidentiary principle that a conviction cannot stand when the material physical evidence (the weapon, the perforated clothing, and the projectiles) is neither produced nor linked to the accused, and where witnesses fail to provide consistent identification.

The High Court found that the prosecution's case rested solely on the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.-6, as other eye-witnesses (P.W.-7 and P.W.-8) failed to identify the appellant.

The court noted critical investigative lapses: the shirt allegedly pierced by the bullet was never seized or produced; the alleged firearm was never recovered; and the seized pellet and cartridge were not presented as material exhibits during the trial.

The court found the Investigating Officer’s (P.W.-9) testimony regarding holes in the door inconsistent with the theory of a single shot.

Furthermore, an unexplained 12-hour delay in lodging the FIR, despite the proximity of the police station, cast significant doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's narrative.

The court reasoned that if 8–10 armed persons intended to murder the informant, there were no intervening circumstances to prevent them, making the Section 307 charge unsustainable.

The court answered the primary issue in the affirmative, finding the conviction suffered from serious errors of law.

Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated May 26 and 30, 2009, allowed the appeal, and discharged the appellant from his bail bonds.