MP HC Upholds Attempt-to-Murder Charge Against Man Accused of Firing at Woman Who Says She Stepped Back Before Shot Hit Wall

The prosecution alleged that, following a prior dispute, the petitioners and others went to the complainant’s house on 29 January 2025, trespassed, abused and threatened the family, and that petitioner No. 1 fired a 12-bore firearm. In statements recorded before a Magistrate under Section 183 of the BNSS, the complainant and her daughter alleged that petitioner No. 1 aimed at the complainant, who stepped back, and that the bullet struck the boundary wall. Investigation documents included recovery of an empty cartridge and suspected firearm marks on the wall; Section 109 of the BNS was added during the investigation.

The Trial Court framed charges, including Sections 109/3(5) and 331(2) of the BNS against petitioner No. 1 and Section 331(2)/3(5) against petitioner No. 2. The petitioners challenged those charges in revision.

The Court applied the provisions governing the charged offences—Sections 109, 331(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023—and exercised revisional jurisdiction under Sections 438/442 of the BNSS, corresponding to Sections 397/401 of the CrPC.

At the charge stage, the court must consider the police report, accompanying documents and submissions to determine whether the material, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of an offence and raises a prima facie case or grave suspicion. It must consider the overall effect and broad probabilities but cannot conduct a mini-trial or assess credibility and probative value as at trial.

Revisional review of an order framing charge is narrow: interference is warranted for perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest misreading causing a miscarriage of justice; where the Trial Court’s view is plausible and two views are possible, the revisional court should not substitute its own.

The Magistrate-recorded statements specifically alleged that petitioner No. 1 aimed and fired at the complainant, while the cartridge recovery and suspected marks on the boundary wall provided supporting material at the charge stage. Taken together, this material could give rise to grave suspicion regarding the alleged offences and could not be disregarded merely because the FIR differed from the later statements or because the petitioners disputed the firing, entry, or intention.

The alleged FIR delay, its asserted retaliatory character, the absence of injury or pellets inside the house, the location of the cartridge, and the differing police opinions required evidentiary assessment at trial rather than a conclusive determination in revision. Since the competing factual interpretations could not be resolved without assessing evidence, the Trial Court’s decision to frame charges was a plausible view.

It dismissed the criminal revision and directed that the trial proceed in accordance with law, without being influenced by the Court’s observations.