Supreme Court acquits accused of Attempt to Murder due to lack of evidence: Vasudev vs. State of M.P. (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 1 February 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 89
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J. (authored the judgment).
Can a person be convicted of attempt to murder when the evidence does not clearly show their intention to cause death? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where the accused was charged with attempt to murder and offences under the Arms Act, 1959. The Court examined whether the prosecution had proven beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention or knowledge to commit murder. This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence in criminal cases and the stringent standards required for conviction.

Case Background

On June 15, 2006, the police received information that Rajesh Shukla, an absconding accused, was hiding in the village of Mahoi Kala, along with his associates. The police, led by Sub-Divisional Officer Dr. Sanjay Agrawal (PW10), surrounded the house of Jhallu Kachhi where Rajesh Shukla was reportedly hiding. The police asked Rajesh Shukla to surrender, but instead, he allegedly opened fire on the police. The police retaliated, and after some time, Rajesh Shukla and the appellant, Vasudev Shukla, surrendered. Upon their surrender, the police recovered a .315 bore rifle with 19 live and 5 empty cartridges from Rajesh Shukla, and a 12 bore double barrel gun with 20 live and 7 empty cartridges from Vasudev Shukla. The police registered a First Information Report (FIR), seized the weapons and cartridges, and arrested the accused. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted both accused, Rajesh Shukla and Vasudev Shukla, under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (attempt to murder with common intention), and Sections 3/25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Trial Court reasoned that the accused were aware of the police challenge to surrender, and instead of surrendering, they fired gunshots which were retaliated by the police. The Trial Court relied on the FSL report (Exb. P-17A) which confirmed that the seized guns could fire. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to four years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000 for the offence under Section 307/34 IPC, two years with a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence under Section 3/25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, and three years with a fine of Rs. 1,000 for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, with all sentences running concurrently.

The judgment of the Trial Court was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. During the pendency of the appeal, Rajesh Shukla died on 19.02.2016, and his appeal was dismissed as abated. The High Court dismissed the appeal of Vasudev Shukla, confirming the Trial Court’s judgment in its entirety.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of 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.” The key elements are the intention or knowledge to cause death and an act done towards that end.
• Section 3/25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959: This section penalizes the possession of prohibited arms or ammunition without a license.
• Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: This section penalizes the use of arms or ammunition in contravention of the law.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the prosecution’s case itself did not indicate any apprehension of his abscondment. The information received by the police was regarding Rajesh Shukla hiding in Jhallu Kachhi’s house, not the appellant.
• The prosecution witnesses did not specifically name or see the appellant firing at them with the intention or knowledge to commit murder.
• The FSL report (Exb. P-17A) indicated a disparity in matching the firing pin impression of the cartridges seized from the appellant’s gun, suggesting that the cartridges were not fired from his gun. The right barrel of the 12 bore gun was cut and short, making it impossible to fire.
• The testimony of the witnesses clarified that the firing was towards the hill area and not towards the police party.
• The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove the intention and knowledge to commit an act amounting to an attempt to murder.
• The appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parsuram Pandey and others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 5068, to support his argument that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The appellant argued that the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 was not made out as the seized gun was not used in firing. Even if the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 was made out, the sentence awarded by the Trial Court was two years, which the appellant had already served.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the Trial Court and the High Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.
• The State contended that no interference was warranted in this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the ingredients to prove an offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 is justified.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Parsuram Pandey and others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 5068: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the prosecution must prove the necessary ingredients for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: The Court analyzed the ingredients of this section and found that the prosecution had failed to prove the intention or knowledge of the appellant to commit murder.
• Section 3/25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959: The Court upheld the conviction under this section as the appellant was found in possession of a prohibited arm without a license, but noted that the sentence had already been served.
• Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959: The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the use of the gun by the appellant, and therefore, the conviction under this section was not justified.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence presented by the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The prosecution’s failure to prove the intention or knowledge of the appellant to commit an act towards the police party.
• The FSL report’s findings that the gun seized from the appellant was not used in firing.
• The testimonies of the witnesses, which did not clearly implicate the appellant in firing at the police.
• The lack of independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution’s version of the events.
• The plausible defense taken by the appellant, which created a reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s case.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and that convictions cannot be based on presumptions or assumptions.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court also considered the alternative interpretation that the accused were “prized goons” and were absconding, but rejected it because the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, not based on presumptions.

The Court’s decision was based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the legal principles involved. The Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“None of the said prosecution witnesses have seen the appellant firing on police party, with intention or knowledge to commit an offence, proving his guilt.”

“As per the said testimony, it is apparent that the intention and knowledge to commit an act by them towards the police party has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.”

“The High Court, while convicting the appellant by the impugned judgment, merely observed that because accused were prized goons and were absconding and as per the deposition, it could not be said that the appellant No. 2 was not involved because he was arrested on spot and taken to police station.”

Key Takeaways

• The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and convictions cannot be based on presumptions or assumptions.
• For an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must prove the intention or knowledge to cause death and an act done towards that end.
• The use of a firearm must be established by concrete evidence, such as a FSL report, to prove an offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
• Testimonies of witnesses must be clear and consistent to establish the guilt of the accused.
• The presence of independent witnesses can strengthen the prosecution’s case.

This judgment underscores the importance of meticulous investigation and the need for concrete evidence in criminal cases. It also highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant be released forthwith from jail if he is not required in any other case, as he had already served the sentence for the charge under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention or knowledge to cause death and committed an act towards that end. Furthermore, for a conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the use of the firearm must be established by concrete evidence. This judgment reinforces the principle that convictions cannot be based on presumptions or assumptions and emphasizes the importance of concrete evidence in criminal cases. There is no change in the previous positions of the law, but the judgment clarifies the application of these principles in cases involving attempt to murder and offences under the Arms Act, 1959.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence for the charges under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The Court acquitted the appellant of these charges, emphasizing that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, but noted that the appellant had already served the sentence for that charge. The appellant was ordered to be released from jail if not required in any other case.