Section 307 conviction unsustainable where lack of motive and complainant’s mental health render defense version plausible.

The appellant was married to the complainant, Leela Bai (PW-1), in 2006. Following allegations of harassment, the complainant resided at her maternal home with their infant son.

On April 30, 2008, the appellant visited the complainant’s maternal home to stay the night. At approximately 3:30 a.m., the complainant alleged that while she went to fetch water for the appellant, she returned to find him attempting to strangulate their son with a nylon rope.

The complainant’s parents (PW-2 and PW-3) rushed to the room upon hearing her alarm and claimed to have rescued the child.

The appellant was subsequently charged and convicted by the Sessions Judge, Durg, under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant challenged this conviction, contending that the complainant suffered from mental illness and had attempted to harm the child herself, leading to his false implication.

1. Whether the prosecution established the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC beyond a reasonable doubt, specifically regarding the appellant's intention and the credibility of the eyewitness account.

2. Whether the lack of established motive and the admitted mental health condition of the complainant rendered the prosecution's narrative unreliable.

The court primarily applied Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) regarding the attempt to commit murder, which requires proof of intent or knowledge and an act toward the commission of death.

It relied on the evidentiary standards of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 374) for criminal appeals.

The Court further applied the principle from Raju and another v. State of Uttarakhand, which emphasizes that in the absence of a clear motive and where the prosecution narrative is unconvincing, a conviction under Section 307 cannot be sustained.

The Court noted the procedural requirement for bail/surety under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, following an acquittal.

The Court found the prosecution's case riddled with inconsistencies.

While PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3 alleged the appellant attempted strangulation, the Court noted that PW-2 and PW-3 were not eyewitnesses to the act but arrived only after the alarm was raised.

Crucially, the complainant (PW-1) and her parents admitted that she had been undergoing treatment for mental stress and illness.

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to attribute any motive for the appellant to kill his own son, especially since he had visited the house with the intent to take his wife back.

Applying the Raju precedent, the Court held that the appellant’s defense—that the mentally distressed complainant attempted the act herself—was a plausible explanation that the prosecution failed to disprove.

Furthermore, admissions by PW-2 and PW-1 that they directed the police to ensure the appellant was jailed "by any means" severely undermined the credibility and objectivity of their testimonies.

The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment dated November 19, 2008, and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 307 of the IPC.

The appellant was directed to furnish a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- pursuant to Section 481 of the BNSS to remain effective for six months.