Material contradictions and absent medical and investigative evidence warranted acquittal on reasonable doubt.

On 14 August 2005, the informant, Birendra Paswan, alleged that while returning home, the appellant and other co-accused persons attacked him and his companions pursuant to a land dispute. The appellant allegedly fired a pistol at the informant, causing an injury to his rib cage; another co-accused allegedly fired at Rajendra Yadav. An FIR was registered under Sections 324, 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the informant, his family members, an injured witness, and two independent witnesses who were declared hostile; neither the doctor nor the Investigating Officer was examined. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him to two years’ simple imprisonment. The present appeal was filed under Section 374(2) CrPC challenging that conviction.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person who fired at and voluntarily caused hurt to the informant, thereby committing an offence under Section 324 IPC.

Whether the conviction could be sustained despite material inconsistencies in the ocular evidence, hostile independent witnesses, and the non-examination of the doctor and Investigating Officer.

Whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.

The Court applied Section 324 IPC concerning voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means and Section 374(2) CrPC governing appeals against conviction.

It reiterated that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused is presumed innocent; suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof.

Minor discrepancies may be disregarded, but contradictions concerning the identity of the assailant, number of firings, or manner of causing injury are material.

Evidence of a hostile witness is not wholly effaced, but only its reliable portions may be relied upon.

Relying on Munna Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 18 SCC 661, the Court held that non-examination of the Investigating Officer may assume significance where the ocular evidence is unreliable and his evidence could explain material omissions and contradictions.

The Court also relied on Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, for the benefit-of-doubt principle, and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, for the requirement that the prosecution evidence must form a complete and conclusive chain consistent only with guilt.

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution were invoked to emphasize rational, fair, and non-arbitrary criminal adjudication.

Although PW-1 directly attributed the firing to the appellant, his testimony did not receive adequate assurance from the remaining evidence.

PW-5, projected as an injured eyewitness, did not identify the appellant as the shooter and spoke of only one firing; he was also declared hostile.

The depositions of PW-2 to PW-4, who were family members and not eyewitnesses to the firing, contained material variations and could not independently establish the appellant’s specific overt act.

The independent witnesses did not support the prosecution, while the doctor’s non-examination deprived the Court of objective medical corroboration regarding the alleged firearm injury.

In the circumstances, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused prejudice because his evidence could have addressed the material omissions and contradictions.

Cumulatively, these deficiencies created a reasonable doubt as to the identity of the shooter and the appellant’s specific involvement; therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the Section 324 charge beyond reasonable doubt.

The appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 324 IPC by extending to him the benefit of reasonable doubt.

As he was on bail, he was discharged from his bail-bond liabilities and the sureties were released.

Any fine paid was directed to be returned, and the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee was directed to pay ₹10,000 to the appointed amicus curiae.