Firearm Use and Prior Threats Establish Intent to Kill Categorizing Assault as Attempted Murder

The Appellant, Asad Arif, was convicted under Section 307 of the IPC for firing a gunshot at the complainant, Ms. Muskan, on the night of September 18, 2011

The prosecution alleged that the Appellant, a neighbor, stood outside the complainant’s window and shot her in the right thigh after she refused his marriage proposal

Medical evidence through MLC No. 24438 confirmed a gunshot injury and the surgical removal of a bullet from the victim's thigh, classifying the injury as "grievous"

The Trial Court sentenced the Appellant to three years of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,05,000

The Appellant challenged the conviction and sentence, arguing lack of intent to kill as the injury was on a non-vital part (thigh) and citing a delay in recording the victim's statement

1. Whether the prosecution established the requisite intention or knowledge to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC given the injury was on a non-vital limb

2. Whether the delay in recording the victim’s statement and the absence of the accused’s name in the initial medical record (MLC) were fatal to the prosecution's case

The Court applied Section 307 of the IPC regarding "Attempt to Murder," focusing on the requirement of intention or knowledge

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, which establishes that for Section 307, the nature of the injury is not the sole factor; intention must be gathered from the totality of circumstances, including the weapon used, threats uttered, and the severity of the act

The Court also referenced Ratan Singh v. State of M.P. to emphasize that firing a weapon at a person inherently demonstrates dangerous intent

The Court rejected the Appellant's contention that the situs of the injury (the thigh) precluded a Section 307 conviction. It reasoned that the act of firing a gunshot at close range, preceded by a verbal threat to kill ("I will not spare you"), clearly manifested the requisite intention to commit murder

The Court held that the bullet striking a non-vital part was "fortuitous" and did not dilute the criminal intent

Regarding procedural delays, the Court found the 22-hour delay in recording the victim's statement was sufficiently explained by her medical state (influence of drugs and immediate surgery)

Furthermore, the Court noted a "pattern of conduct" through prior complaints (Exhibits PW-4/C and PW-4/D) involving stalking and threats with a knife, which corroborated the motive and premeditation

The Court dismissed the appeal, confirmed the three-year imprisonment sentence, and modified the financial penalty by directing the Appellant to pay an additional ₹2,00,000 in compensation to the victim due to the long-term impact of the trauma

The Appellant was ordered to surrender by May 6, 2026, to serve the remainder of his sentence