Contradictory Witness Testimonies and Uncorroborated Forensic Evidence Preclude Conviction for Attempted Murder Under Section 307 IPC

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 307 of the IPC for allegedly assaulting Saryu Yadav and Sanjay Yadav with a ‘Garasha’ (pole-axe) following a dispute over a ‘rangdari’ (extortion) demand on May 18, 2012

The prosecution alleged the Appellant caused head injuries to the victims during a labor payment session

The Appellant challenged the conviction, contending that the testimonies were contradictory and that the case was a retaliatory filing following a molestation complaint lodged by the Appellant’s wife against the informant party

1. Whether the prosecution evidenced the guilt of the Appellant beyond a reasonable doubt given the material contradictions in witness testimonies regarding the number of persons present and the recovery of the weapon

2. Whether the injuries sustained by the victims were sufficient to attract a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC

Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to attempt to murder and the evidentiary standards required under the Indian Evidence Act

The principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that material contradictions in eye-witness accounts, coupled with the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, can be fatal to the prosecution's case

The High Court found the prosecution's evidence unreliable due to significant discrepancies between the witnesses. While P.W.1 claimed only three people were present, other witnesses stated 40–50 people were at the scene, yet no independent witnesses were examined

The court noted that multiple witnesses (P.W.3 and P.W.8) made conflicting claims about who seized and handed the weapon to the police, and the Investigating Officer was never examined to clarify the recovery

the medical evidence from P.W.10 described the injuries as simple and lacerated, with no bone fractures, which undermined the charge of an attempt to murder

the court observed the existence of a prior counter-case for molestation against the informant party, suggesting a motive for false implication

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2019 and the order of sentence dated 13.02.2019, and discharged the Appellant from his bail bonds