Acquittal of Co-Accused and Specific Role Attribution Negates Shared Intent for Attempted Murder Conviction

On November 8, 2024, the victim, Vikram Chaudhary (PW-1), was assaulted near Rani Talab, Rewa.

The prosecution alleged that three individuals participated in the attack.

During the trial, the victim testified that while the other two accused inflicted knife blows, the appellant (wearing a black T-shirt) only assaulted him with hands and fists.

The Trial Court acquitted the two co-accused (the alleged knife-wielders) but convicted the appellant under Section 109(1) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (corresponding to Section 307 IPC—attempt to murder), sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this conviction as inconsistent with the evidence.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant for attempt to murder under Section 109(1) of the BNS is sustainable when the co-accused attributed with the fatal weapon were acquitted and the appellant’s role was limited to assault by hands and fists.

2. Whether the appellant’s act, in the absence of a deadly weapon or proved common intention to kill, should be limited to voluntarily causing hurt.

Section 109 of the BNS [corresponding to Section 307 of the IPC] regarding attempt to murder, which requires proof of specific intention or knowledge coupled with an overt act capable of causing death.

Section 115(2) of the BNS [corresponding to Section 323 of the IPC], which pertains to voluntarily causing hurt.

The court emphasized the principle of consistency in criminal trials, holding that a version of facts selectively applied to one accused while acquitting others on the same set of facts regarding the primary act (infliction of knife blows) is unsustainable.

The Court observed that the conviction relied solely on the testimony of the injured witness (PW-1), as other witnesses were hearsay or hostile.

PW-1’s testimony clearly segregated the roles: he specifically attributed the knife injuries to the co-accused and stated the appellant only used physical force (hands/fists).

The High Court reasoned that since the Trial Court acquitted the primary assailants who supposedly wielded the knife, the prosecution’s narrative regarding the attempt to murder could not be selectively upheld against the appellant alone.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that the appellant shared a common intention to kill or committed an overt act commensurate with the gravity of Section 307 IPC/Section 109 BNS.

Consequently, the act only met the threshold for simple hurt.

Considering the appellant's young age and the fact that he had already served approximately 360 days in custody, the Court reduced his sentence to the period already undergone.

The fine was maintained, and the appellant was ordered to be released forthwith.