Simple firearm injuries without proven murderous intent do not sustain conviction under Section 307 IPC.

On 15 November 1985, the informant, Gamhar Singh, alleged that the appellants and other co-accused persons entered his paddy field to harvest the crop.

The appellants were allegedly armed with firearms and, during a confrontation, fired shots causing injuries to Gamhar Singh, Mundar Singh and Sundar Singh.

An FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 379 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

After trial, the Sessions Court acquitted the appellants under Sections 148 and 379 IPC but convicted them under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentencing them to five years’ and three years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively, with concurrent sentences.

The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses, but the doctors who examined the injured persons and the Investigating Officer were not examined.

Whether the evidence established the requisite intention or knowledge to sustain the appellants’ conviction under Section 307 IPC, notwithstanding that the injuries were simple in nature.

Whether the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was sustainable without establishing the specific contravention of Section 5 or Section 7, and without proving the relevant weapon and circumstances through the medical and investigating evidence.

Whether, on the evidence, the appellants could instead be convicted under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt by a dangerous weapon.

The Court applied Section 307 IPC, which requires an act done with the intention or knowledge that, if death had resulted, the accused would be guilty of murder.

Relying on Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 SCC 551, and Jage Ram v. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366, the Court held that intention must be inferred from the totality of circumstances, including the weapon used, manner of use, motive, part of the body targeted, and nature and severity of the injuries; a fatal injury is not essential, but the requisite murderous intention or knowledge must be proved.

Section 324 IPC criminalises voluntarily causing hurt by means of an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or another weapon likely to cause death.

For Section 27 of the Arms Act, as applicable at the relevant time, the prosecution had to prove use of arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 or, where applicable, Section 7; the Court relied on Surinder Singh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), (2021) 20 SCC 24.

The Court found that although the injured witnesses directly attributed the firing to the appellants, the medical reports recorded only skin-deep, simple lacerated injuries.

The absence of the examining doctors meant that the alleged firearm injuries, including the absence of entry or exit wounds, charring, blackening or tattooing, were not properly explained or corroborated.

Considering the simple nature of the injuries, the circumstances of the sudden occurrence, and the absence of evidence demonstrating an intention to kill or knowledge that death would probably result, the requirements of Section 307 IPC were not met.

However, the direct evidence sufficiently established that hurt had been caused by a dangerous instrument, warranting conviction under Section 324 IPC.

The conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was unsustainable because the trial court did not specify the applicable sub-section or establish whether the alleged use contravened Section 5 or Section 7; additionally, the non-examination of the Investigating Officer and doctor left the use and legal character of the firearm unproved.

The appellants were instead held guilty under Section 324 IPC.

Since the occurrence was from 1985, more than four decades had elapsed, and the appellants had already undergone approximately two months of custody, the sentence under Section 324 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone.

The appeal was dismissed on merits with modification of conviction and sentence; the appellants, being on bail, were discharged from their bail bonds and the sureties were released.