An injured witness’s testimony cannot sustain conviction where material inconsistencies and medical evidence create reasonable doubt.

The appeals challenged the judgment dated 5 June 2026 by which Mohd Kamil @ Guddu, Abdul Rauf and Aarif Ali @ Aarif were convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹20,000 each in connection with Case Crime No. 388 of 2006, Police Station Phulbehad, District Kheri.

The prosecution alleged that on 9 September 2006, after a quarrel between the children of the complainant and those of Rauf, the accused fired country-made pistols at complainant Subarati, causing pellet injuries to his face, chest and abdomen.

The complainant’s medical examination recorded multiple small lacerated wounds and blackening, while X-ray showed metallic foreign bodies in the face and chest.

The prosecution relied principally on the testimony of the injured complainant and his brother, whereas the defence relied on inconsistencies in the prosecution case, the absence of physical evidence, the unexplained injuries sustained by Aarif, and the possibility that the complainant was accidentally injured by firing from his own side.

The High Court found material discrepancies concerning the genesis, place and manner of occurrence, the FIR, the number and identity of shooters, and the injuries of Aarif.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants fired at the complainant with the intention or knowledge necessary to constitute an offence under Section 307 IPC?

Whether the material contradictions regarding the genesis and place of occurrence, the FIR, the alleged firing, and the medical and physical evidence created a reasonable doubt entitling the appellants to acquittal?

Whether the unexplained injuries sustained by appellant Aarif and the defence version affected the reliability of the prosecution case?

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court could be sustained in view of the prosecution’s failure to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt?

The Court applied Section 307 IPC, under which an attempt to murder requires an intentional or knowing overt act done in circumstances contemplated by the provision; infliction of an injury sufficient to cause death is not indispensable, but the requisite mens rea must still be established.

The Court considered the principle that an injured witness ordinarily receives special evidentiary status because the injury establishes the witness’s presence, but such testimony may be rejected where major contradictions and discrepancies create serious doubt, as recognised in Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., State of U.P. v. Naresh, and Rakesh v. State of U.P.

It also noted that recovery of the weapon is not a sine qua non for conviction, though its absence may assume significance cumulatively with other deficiencies.

Under the settled rule of criminal jurisprudence, the prosecution bears the primary burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the defence need only create a reasonable doubt or establish its version on a preponderance of probabilities.

The Court further held that an accused cannot be prejudiced by failure to explain circumstances under Section 313 CrPC where the relevant question was not properly put to him.

The Court cautioned that precedents must be applied according to the facts of each case and that criminal cases are decided primarily on the evidence on record.

The Court held that the prosecution version was materially inconsistent with the site plan. Although the FIR and ocular evidence suggested that the accused fired while the complainant intervened in a quarrel near the houses, the site plan placed the shooters inside a room approximately 22 steps from the complainant and showed no door or window through which firing could have occurred.

The complainant claimed profuse bleeding, blood-soaked clothes and collapse at the spot, but neither the medical evidence nor the investigating officer’s inspection revealed bleeding or bloodstains, and the clothes were not produced.

The alleged quarrel between the children was also doubtful because the complainant admitted that there were no children in Rauf’s family, while the alternative account concerning damage by Rauf’s buffalo was contradicted by PW-5’s statement that the appellants had no cattle.

The evidence regarding the number of shots was contradictory: PW-1 stated that shots were fired continuously, whereas PW-5 heard only one shot, consistent with the medical evidence of injuries attributable to a single firing.

The unexplained four injuries suffered by Aarif further suggested suppression of the complete occurrence and supported the possibility that the complainant’s side had initiated the confrontation.

The Court also found it doubtful that blackening could have resulted from firing a country-made pistol from the alleged distance of 22–25 steps, and noted that no vital organ was damaged, the injuries were not declared fatal, and the medical report lacked adequate measurements or depth assessment.

Cumulatively, these circumstances undermined both the prosecution’s account of the occurrence and proof of the intention or knowledge required under Section 307 IPC.

The trial court’s judgment dated 5 June 2026 convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 307 IPC was set aside, and Criminal Appeal Nos. 2048 of 2026 and 1792 of 2026 were allowed.

The appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 IPC and, being in custody, were directed to be released on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties under Section 437-A CrPC, effective for six months and subject to appearance before the Supreme Court if required.

The Court declined to decide the juvenility claim of Mohd Kamil @ Guddu because the acquittal rendered the issue academic, while also observing that the issue had not been properly raised at earlier stages.