Preponderance of probabilities is insufficient for criminal conviction; intent to murder cannot be inferred from simple injuries.

The appellants challenged the judgment dated 31.05.2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Barabanki, convicting them under Sections 364, 307/34, and 323/34 of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 30.07.2000, the appellants abducted Bhagauti Prasad in a jeep, took him to a jungle, and assaulted him with sticks and fire.

The victim sustained 12 simple injuries.

The defense argued that the case was a counter-blast to a dowry death FIR filed by Appellant No. 1’s family against the victim’s family.

Appellant No. 2 pleaded an alibi, supported by two defense witnesses from the Forest Department.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants primarily on the "preponderance of probabilities" after discarding the defense evidence as a "tendency to save co-employees".

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in shifting the burden of proof onto the accused and deciding the case based on the preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the conviction under Sections 307 and 364 IPC is sustainable when the injuries were simple and no lethal weapons were used.

3. Whether the plea of alibi of Appellant No. 2 was wrongly discarded based on conjectures.

The primary burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The accused only needs to create a doubt or prove a defense on the anvil of "preponderance of probabilities" as per Anand Ramachandra Chougule v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala (2019) 8 SCC 50.

Under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), while a fatal injury is not mandatory, the intention must be inferred from the nature of the weapon and the severity of blows, relying on Sivamani v. State (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1581.

The court referred to Sections 362 (Abduction), 364 (Abduction in order to murder), and 323 (Voluntary causing hurt) of the IPC.

The High Court found that the Trial Court committed a manifest error by requiring the accused to prove their innocence instead of requiring the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Trial Court’s dismissal of Appellant No. 2's alibi—supported by two departmental witnesses—was based on mere conjectures regarding "tendencies" of employees.

The Court noted significant discrepancies: the victim claimed he was unconscious, but medical reports and police letters stated otherwise.

The Court observed that despite the victim being in custody for six hours, he suffered only simple injuries with no lethal weapons used, indicating a lack of "intent to kill" required for Sections 307 and 364.

The higher charges were unsustainable, though a case for simple abduction (Sec. 362/365) and hurt (Sec. 323) was made out against Appellant No. 1.

The conviction of Appellant No. 1 was modified; he was acquitted under Sections 364 and 307 IPC but held guilty under Sections 362 and 323 IPC.

Appellant No. 1 was granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act due to his clean record since the 2012 conviction and was ordered not to be kept on further probation given the decade-long lapse of time.