Section 307/149 Conviction Set Aside for Failure to Prove Appellants’ Participation Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

The prosecution alleged that, on 16 October 1998, the appellants and two co-accused arrived at disputed land where the informant was constructing a memorial.

A co-accused allegedly shot the informant, while another allegedly assaulted the informant’s wife with a lathi.

The informant and his family members testified for the prosecution; the independent witness did not witness the firing or assault, and the Investigating Officer was not examined.

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced each to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine. They appealed against the conviction and sentence.

Whether the appellants’ conviction under Sections 307/149 IPC was sustainable when the specific acts of firing and assault were attributed to co-accused and no specific role was assigned to the appellants.

Whether the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, in the circumstances of the case, caused prejudice to the defence.

The court considered Sections 307 and 149 IPC: Section 307 concerns an act done with the requisite intention or knowledge to constitute an attempt to murder, while Section 149 imposes constructive liability on members of an unlawful assembly for offences committed in prosecution of its common object, or offences members knew were likely to be committed.

The court assessed whether the charge had been proved beyond reasonable doubt and treated the non-examination of the Investigating Officer as relevant where it prevented the defence from contradicting prosecution witnesses.

No precedent was cited in the judgment.

The court found that the alleged firing and lathi assault were specifically attributed to co-accused, with no specific role in the assault assigned to the appellants.

It also noted the land dispute, the absence of independent corroboration, and that the prosecution witnesses were principally members of the informant’s family.

In the court’s view, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer prejudiced the defence because it prevented contradiction of those witnesses.

Considering these circumstances, the court held that the charge under Sections 307/149 IPC had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.