Conviction Under Section 307 IPC Modified to Section 326 IPC Due to Inconclusive Proof of Intent to Kill

The prosecution alleged that on July 5, 2005, while the informant (P.W. 2) and others were digging soil by a riverside, the appellants arrived armed. Appellant Dipan Singh Yadav allegedly fired a double-barrel gun, causing pellet injuries to the informant’s right eye and forehead, resulting in loss of eyesight.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 148 and 307/149 of the IPC, and further convicted Dipan Singh Yadav under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The appellants challenged this conviction before the Patna High Court on grounds of material contradictions, hostile witnesses, and lack of objective evidence.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC and the violation of Section 27 of the Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the conviction can be sustained in the absence of original medical records, seizure of firearms, or independent corroboration of the place of occurrence.

The Court primarily considered Section 307 (Attempt to murder), Section 149 (Unlawful assembly), and Section 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons) of the Indian Penal Code.

It also examined Section 27 of the Arms Act regarding the use of prohibited arms.

The court applied the evidentiary principle that while the testimony of an injured witness (P.W. 2) carries weight, it must be corroborated by medical evidence and surrounding circumstances to inspire confidence.

The court looked at the necessity of proving the corpus delicti and the weapon of offence through seizure and ballistic examination.

Several material witnesses (P.W. 3, 5, 6, and 7) turned hostile, leaving the case to rely on P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who were found to be interested and inimical due to previous litigations.

The Investigation Officer failed to seize blood-stained soil, pellets, or the firearm, and no ballistic examination was conducted.

The prosecution failed to produce the original injury report; the doctor (P.W. 8) admitted the report was a copy and provided no final opinion on permanent blindness or the nature of the injury.

The High Court reasoned that since there was no evidence of repetitive blows or intent to kill, and in the absence of the weapon and original medical reports, the conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was unsustainable.

The Court held that while the evidence was insufficient for attempt to murder, a case under Section 326 IPC was made out; however, since the appellants had already undergone a "sufficiently long period" in custody, it sentenced them to the period already undergone.

The appeals were allowed, the appellants were acquitted of the original charges, and they were discharged from their bail bonds.