Acquittal Upheld: Supreme Court dismisses appeal in Attempt to Murder Case (2008)

Date of the Judgment: September 18, 2008
Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. and Harjit Singh Bedi, J.

In a criminal appeal concerning an attempt to murder, the Supreme Court of India was tasked with evaluating the correctness of a Patna High Court judgment that acquitted the accused. The core issue revolved around the reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly the testimony of the injured informant and the discrepancies in the timing of the First Information Report (FIR) and medical examination. The bench, comprising Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Justice Harjit Singh Bedi, ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal based on noted inconsistencies and unexplained delays.

Case Background

On August 11, 1992, at approximately 7:00 a.m., the informant, Balmiki Singh, was allegedly attacked while on his way to inspect his paddy field. According to the prosecution, he encountered the accused, Ram Chander Singh and Shravan, who were hiding behind a palm tree armed with weapons. An altercation ensued, during which Shravan, allegedly on the orders of Ram Chander, fired upon Balmiki Singh, hitting him in the right chest. The incident was purportedly triggered by a prior dispute over irrigation water usage. Following the attack, the injured Balmiki Singh was taken to Magadh Medical Hospital, where his statement (Fardbeyan) was recorded by the police.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Following the investigation, a charge sheet was submitted, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The Trial Court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented, sentencing them under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. However, on appeal, the High Court overturned the Trial Court’s decision, acquitting the accused. The informant then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s acquittal.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with attempt to murder. It states that “Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines common intention. It states that “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section pertains to the punishment for using arms, etc.

Arguments

Appellant’s Argument:

• The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the High Court erred in discarding the evidence of PW-6, the injured informant, and thus, the acquittal was unjustified.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused based on the evidence on record.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any specific cases or legal books as authorities. The reasoning is based on the factual discrepancies and inconsistencies in the evidence presented.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the acquittal was primarily influenced by the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the contradiction between the medical evidence and the informant’s testimony regarding the number of shots fired, and the lack of explanation for the third injury all contributed to the Court’s skepticism about the prosecution’s version of events.

Key Takeaways

• Importance of Timely FIR: Delays in lodging the FIR can raise doubts about the authenticity of the অভিযোগ.
• Consistency in Evidence: Discrepancies between oral testimony and medical evidence can weaken the prosecution’s case.
• Burden of Proof: The prosecution must provide a coherent and credible account of the incident to secure a conviction.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the importance of a credible and consistent prosecution case in securing a conviction. It highlights that unexplained delays and inconsistencies in evidence can lead to acquittal, even in cases involving serious charges like attempt to murder.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the accused due to significant inconsistencies and unexplained delays in the prosecution’s evidence. The judgment underscores the necessity of a coherent and credible prosecution case for securing convictions, particularly in cases involving serious offenses.