AEROBATIC FIRING WITHOUT INTENT TO INJURE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ATTEMPT TO MURDER UNDER SECTION 307 IPC

The applicants were accused in an FIR (II-CR No. 3097 of 2015) alleging that during a marriage reception on February 16, 2015, they celebratory fired revolvers and pistols into the air

The police filed a charge-sheet under Sections 307, 201, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 25(1)(B)(A) of the Arms Act

The applicants filed a discharge application (Exh. 5) under Section 227 of the CrPC, arguing that Section 307 (Attempt to Murder) was not applicable as there was no intention to cause injury

The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dismissed the discharge application on August 31, 2018, primarily due to the criminal antecedents of applicant No. 3

The applicants then moved the High Court in revision.

1. Whether the act of firing in the air during a marriage procession, without specific intent to hurt, constitutes an "attempt to murder" under Section 307 of the IPC

2. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the discharge application under Section 227 CrPC solely based on the criminal antecedents of the accused

The court applied Section 227 of the CrPC regarding the discharge of an accused when no sufficient ground for proceeding exists

It interpreted Section 307 of the IPC, establishing that while an actual injury is not required, the "intention" or "knowledge" to cause death must be established from attending circumstances

The court also considered Sections 3 and 25(1)(B)(A) of the Arms Act regarding the possession and use of firearms

The High Court observed that the firing occurred during a customary marriage procession of the Darbar community

It reasoned that to sustain a charge under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution must show the accused possessed the requisite intention to cause death; mere "presumption and assumption" that a misfire might cause injury is insufficient to put an accused on trial

The Court found that the Sessions Judge was unduly influenced by the fact that Applicant No. 3 was a listed bootlegger with criminal antecedents

The Court held that opening fire in the air without an intent to injure anyone does not amount to an attempt to murder, as legal evidence is required to infer such intention rather than mere anticipation of a possible accident

The Court held that the applicants are discharged from the offence of attempt to murder; however, the trial shall proceed regarding the offences under the Arms Act and other relevant IPC sections

The interim relief was vacated, and the record was returned to the subordinate court