After Woman Suffered Superficial Pellet Wounds In Coffee-Estate Shooting, Karnataka HC Replaces Attempted-Murder Conviction With Section 324 IPC

The appellant and the complainant’s family had a longstanding dispute over adjacent coffee-estate lands.

The complainant (PW.1) alleged that on 17 January 2014 the appellant fired a gun at her while she was plucking coffee, injuring her.

The appellant’s defence was that PW.1 was accidentally injured when her husband fired at the appellant; a complaint by the appellant against the husband and another person had resulted in a separate case, later closed with a ‘B’ report.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 307 IPC, 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 30 of the Arms Act, and acquitted him under Section 326 IPC.

He appealed against the convictions.

The court considered Section 307 IPC, which concerns an act done with the intention or knowledge required for attempted murder, and Section 324 IPC, concerning voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon or means.

It held that the evidence did not establish an intention to commit murder or grievous injury, but did establish simple injuries caused by pellets fired from a gun.

The court held that, in light of its finding that the appellant committed an offence under Section 324 IPC and not Section 307 IPC, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act did not apply in this case.

It also considered Section 30 of the Arms Act, under which the trial court had convicted the appellant for the use of the gun in contravention of the licence conditions; it found no basis to interfere with that conviction.

No precedent was cited.

The complainant’s evidence, supported by other witnesses and the ballistic evidence, established that the appellant fired the gun and caused her injuries; the defence account that her husband’s firing caused the injuries was rejected.

However, the pellets removed from PW.1 were small, the treating doctor described the injuries as superficial and simple, and the prosecution did not establish that the pellets were sufficient to cause death or that the shot was fired from a distance supporting an inference of murderous intent.

The court therefore found the evidence sufficient for Section 324 IPC, but not Section 307 IPC.

Because the offence established was not one punishable under Section 307 IPC, the court held Section 3(2)(v) inapplicable.

It found no reason to disturb the Arms Act conviction.

The convictions under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act were set aside; the appellant was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone.

The conviction and sentence under Section 30 of the Arms Act were confirmed, with the sentence to run concurrently.

The appellant was also directed to pay a fine of ₹3,00,000 within three months, to be released to PW.1 as compensation; default in payment would entail six months’ imprisonment.