Section 307 IPC conviction may stand without injury where deliberate vehicle ramming supports intent or knowledge.

On the intervening night of 29–30 January 2011, a police team on patrol attempted to stop a white TATA-407 tempo after receiving information about cows being loaded nearby.

The prosecution alleged that the tempo’s driver reversed and drove into the PCR van before fleeing, and that the appellant, an occupant of the tempo, threatened or exhorted the driver.

No police official was injured, and the tempo was not recovered.

The appellant was later implicated during further investigation, refused to participate in a test identification parade, and was convicted under Sections 307/353 read with Section 34 IPC.

He appealed against his conviction and sentence of concurrent imprisonment of seven years and two years, respectively.

1. Whether the prosecution established the appellant’s involvement in the incident, having regard to the eyewitness identification, discrepancies in the police witnesses’ accounts, and the non-examination of another member of the police team.

2. Whether the acts attributed to the appellant established the ingredients of Sections 307 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC, notwithstanding the absence of injuries.

The Court considered Sections 307 and 353 read with Section 34 IPC.

For Section 307, bodily injury is not essential; the controlling consideration is whether the act was accompanied by the requisite intention or knowledge, which may be inferred from the act and surrounding circumstances (State of M.P. v. Kanha).

Under Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, discrepancies that do not affect the core of the prosecution case do not ordinarily require rejection of eyewitness testimony.

Police testimony is not inherently suspect merely because the witnesses are police officers, though the absence of independent witnesses may be considered where there is reason to doubt the police evidence (State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil).

The Court assessed the appellant’s liability under Sections 307 and 353 with Section 34 on the evidence as a whole.

The Court found that the three police witnesses substantially agreed on the sequence of interception and collision, and that the damaged PCR van, its mechanical inspection report, and the recovered cartridge cases provided corroboration.

It treated differences in the exact words attributed to the appellant as non-material, and relied on the in-court identifications by PW-5 and PW-6, considered alongside the appellant’s refusal to participate in the TIP; the refusal was not treated as proof of identity by itself.

The Court held that the non-examination of the fourth police official and the initial informer, and the non-recovery of the tempo, did not displace the eyewitness evidence.

For Section 307, it considered the alleged threats, the driver’s reversal and acceleration into the PCR van, and the resulting collision sufficient to support an inference of deliberate conduct and the requisite intention or knowledge; the absence of injury and the fact of a single collision were not decisive.

It dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of conviction dated 20 May 2025 and the order on sentence dated 4 June 2025; pending applications were also disposed of.