PROMPT AND CONSISTENT TESTIMONY CORROBORATED BY MEDICAL EVIDENCE SUFFICIENTLY PROVES ATTEMPT TO MURDER AND ARMS ACT OFFENSES.

The appellant, Hari Lal, was convicted by the trial court on 27.11.1982 under Section 307 of the IPC (7 years RI) and Section 25 of the Arms Act (1 year RI)

The prosecution alleged that on 21.12.1981, while the informant Phoolmati was escorting her mother, the appellant fired a country-made pistol at her, injuring her chest

Witnesses captured the appellant at the spot and recovered a pistol, two cartridges, and a knife

The appellant's motive was purportedly to grab the informant's property, having previously been convicted and placed on probation for a similar assault on her

The appellant contended he was falsely implicated due to a "misunderstanding" in an alleged illicit relationship and claimed his own injuries went unexplained

1. Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the assailant and the intentional nature of the attack beyond reasonable doubt under Section 307 IPC

2. Whether the lack of blood at the place of occurrence and the non-explanation of minor injuries on the accused fatalized the prosecution's case

3. Whether the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act was sustainable based on the recovery made by public witnesses

The court applied Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning attempt to murder, and Section 25 of the Arms Act for illegal possession of weapons

It relied on the evidentiary principle that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

Additionally, the court applied the principle that the non-explanation of minor/simple injuries on the accused does not adversely affect the prosecution case when the ocular testimony is consistent and reliable

The court found the FIR to be prompt, lodged within 2.5 hours of the incident at a distance of 5 miles

The testimony of P.W. 1 (victim) was deemed consistent and was corroborated by independent public witnesses (P.W. 2 and P.W. 3) who apprehended the appellant at the spot

The medical evidence (P.W. 6) confirmed a gunshot wound with blackening and tattooing, consistent with the victim’s claim of being fired upon from a distance of two steps

The court dismissed the "illicit relationship" defense as unsubstantiated and illogical

Regarding the appellant's injuries, the court noted they were simple in nature and likely caused during his capture by the public; thus, their non-explanation did not undermine the credible ocular evidence

The court further noted the appellant’s criminal history and previous conviction for assaulting the same victim as a strong motive

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentences under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act

The appellant's bail bonds were cancelled, and he was directed to surrender within three weeks to serve the remainder of his seven-year sentence