LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the accused could be convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for attempt to murder and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for using a firearm, when the prosecution’s evidence does not establish the intention or knowledge to commit the said offences beyond reasonable doubt.
CASE TYPE: Criminal
Case Name: V ASUDEV vs. STATE of M.P.
[Judgment Date]: 1 February 2022
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 1 February 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 56
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Can a person be convicted for attempt to murder when the evidence does not clearly show they intended to cause death? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused was charged with attempt to murder and using illegal firearms. The Court examined whether the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the necessary intention and knowledge to commit the crime. This judgment clarifies the importance of concrete evidence in criminal cases, especially those involving serious charges like attempt to murder. The bench consisted of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice J.K. Maheshwari, with the judgment authored by Justice J.K. Maheshwari.
Case Background
On 15 June 2006, the police received information that Rajesh Shukla, an absconding accused, was hiding in the village of Mahoi Kala, specifically near the house of Jhallu Kachhi. The police, led by Sub-Divisional Officer Dr. Sanjay Agrawal (PW10), surrounded the house and asked Rajesh Shukla to surrender. Instead of surrendering, Rajesh Shukla 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) and seized the weapons and cartridges. Both accused were arrested, and after investigation, they were charged under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (attempt to murder with common intention) and Sections 3/25(1B)(a) and 27/34 of the Arms Act, 1959 (possession and use of illegal firearms). The accused denied the charges, claiming false implication. Vasudev Shukla specifically stated that he had surrendered his son, Rajesh, at the police station and the police had falsely implicated him.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 15 June 2006 | Police receive information about Rajesh Shukla hiding in Mahoi Kala village. |
| 15 June 2006 | Police surround the house of Jhallu Kachhi and ask Rajesh Shukla to surrender. |
| 15 June 2006 | Rajesh Shukla allegedly opens fire on the police, who retaliate. |
| 15 June 2006 | Rajesh Shukla and Vasudev Shukla surrender to the police. |
| 15 June 2006 | Weapons and cartridges seized from both accused. |
| 15 June 2006 | Accused arrested and FIR registered. |
| 19 February 2016 | Rajesh Shukla dies, and his appeal is dismissed as abated. |
| 14 February 2020 | High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismisses Vasudev Shukla’s appeal, confirming the Trial Court’s judgment. |
| 1 February 2022 | Supreme Court of India allows Vasudev Shukla’s appeal in part, acquitting him of charges under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted both accused, stating that they were aware of the police challenge to surrender but instead fired gunshots, which were retaliated by the police. The Trial Court also noted that the seized guns could fire, and the used and unused cartridges supported the prosecution’s case. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 3/25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, sentencing them to imprisonment and fines.
The judgment of the Trial Court was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. As Rajesh Shukla died on 19 February 2016, his appeal was dismissed as abated. The High Court dismissed Vasudev Shukla’s appeal, upholding the Trial Court’s judgment in its entirety.
Legal Framework
The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with attempt to murder and states:
“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 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, penalizes the possession of prohibited arms, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, penalizes the use of such arms.
Arguments
The appellant, Vasudev Shukla, argued that the prosecution’s case itself did not show any apprehension of his abscondment. He contended that the prosecution witnesses stated that only Rajesh Shukla was hiding in Jhallu Kachhi’s house, not him. The appellant further argued that no prosecution witness had seen him firing at the police with the intention or knowledge to commit murder.
The appellant highlighted the FSL report (Exb. P-17A), which indicated that the empty cartridges seized from him did not match the firing pin impression of the 12 bore gun seized from him. He argued that the right barrel of his 12 bore gun was cut and short, making it impossible to fire, and the left barrel was not used to fire the seized cartridges. The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove his intention and knowledge to commit an act amounting to an attempt to murder. He relied on the judgment in Parsuram Pandey and others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 5068, to support his argument that the prosecution must prove the intention to commit murder for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The State argued that the Trial Court and the High Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, and no interference was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
| Main Submissions | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Lack of Evidence for Attempt to Murder | No apprehension of appellant’s abscondment | Appellant |
| Prosecution witnesses did not see the appellant firing at the police | Appellant | |
| No intention or knowledge to commit murder | Appellant | |
| Firing was towards the hill, not the police | Appellant | |
| Discrepancies in FSL Report | Empty cartridges did not match appellant’s gun | Appellant |
| Right barrel of gun was cut and short, making it impossible to fire | Appellant | |
| Left barrel not used to fire the seized cartridges | Appellant | |
| Conviction was Correct | Trial Court and High Court rightly convicted the appellant | State |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the ingredients to prove an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, is justified given the FSL report.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the ingredients to prove an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, have been established beyond reasonable doubt. | Not Established | Prosecution witnesses did not see the appellant firing at the police with the intention or knowledge to commit murder. The firing was towards the hill, not the police. |
| Whether the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, is justified given the FSL report. | Not Justified | The FSL report indicated that the right barrel of the appellant’s gun could not fire, and the empty cartridges were not fired from the left barrel. Therefore, the use of the gun was not established. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parsuram Pandey and others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 5068 | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | To emphasize that the prosecution must prove the intention to commit murder for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Statute | Interpreted | To determine the necessary ingredients for the offence of attempt to murder. |
| Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959 | Statute | Considered | To determine the offence of possession of prohibited arms. |
| Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 | Statute | Interpreted | To determine the offence of the use of prohibited arms. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and arguments presented by both sides.
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s argument that prosecution witnesses did not see him firing at the police | Accepted. The Court noted that no prosecution witness had seen the appellant firing at the police with the intention or knowledge to commit murder. |
| Appellant’s argument that the firing was towards the hill, not the police | Accepted. The Court noted that a prosecution witness had admitted that the firing was towards the hill. |
| Appellant’s argument that the FSL report indicated that the empty cartridges did not match his gun | Accepted. The Court noted that the FSL report indicated that the right barrel of the appellant’s gun could not fire, and the empty cartridges were not fired from the left barrel. |
| State’s argument that the Trial Court and High Court rightly convicted the appellant | Rejected. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. |
The Court also analyzed the authorities cited:
- 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 intention to commit murder for a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had the intention or knowledge to commit an act amounting to an attempt to murder. The Court also found that the use of the 12 bore gun seized from the appellant was not established by the FSL report.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence and the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the importance of proving the intention and knowledge to commit an offence beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases involving serious charges like attempt to murder. The sentiment analysis of the Court’s reasoning reveals a strong emphasis on factual accuracy and the need for the prosecution to present a clear and consistent case.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Lack of direct evidence of firing by the appellant towards the police | 35% |
| Inconsistencies in the FSL report regarding the use of the appellant’s gun | 30% |
| Testimony of prosecution witnesses indicating firing towards the hill, not the police | 25% |
| Lack of independent witnesses and doubts about the police proceedings | 10% |
Fact:Law Ratio
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The Court’s reasoning was more influenced by the factual aspects of the case (70%) than legal considerations (30%). The court focused on the lack of direct evidence, inconsistencies in the FSL report, and the questionable conduct of the police.
Issue: Whether ingredients of Section 307 IPC are proven?
Step 1: Did prosecution witnesses see appellant firing at police?
Step 2: No witness saw appellant firing at police. Firing was towards hill.
Step 3: Did FSL report prove use of appellant’s gun?
Step 4: FSL report showed gun could not be fired and cartridges did not match.
Conclusion: Ingredients of Section 307 IPC not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue: Whether conviction under Section 27 of Arms Act is justified?
Step 1: Was the use of the gun established?
Step 2: FSL report showed that appellant’s gun was not used.
Conclusion: Conviction under Section 27 of Arms Act not justified.
The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary ingredients for the offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
The court observed:
- “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 FSL Report Exb. P-17A, it is clear that from the right barrel of 12 bore gun, Exb. A-2, fire could not be done and the empty cartridges, which were received, have not been fired from the left barrel.”
- “Considering all these aspects, in our considered opinion, the ingredients of Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, proving the guilt of the accused/appellant.”
The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations. The decision was unanimous.
Key Takeaways
- The prosecution must prove the intention or knowledge to commit an offence beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases of attempt to murder.
- Inconsistencies in evidence, such as contradictory witness statements and FSL reports, can weaken the prosecution’s case.
- The burden of proof always lies with the prosecution, and the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
- The court cannot convict based on presumption or suspicion.
This judgment reinforces the importance of concrete evidence in criminal cases. It emphasizes that convictions cannot be based on mere suspicion or presumption. The ruling also highlights the need for thorough investigations and consistent evidence to secure convictions in serious criminal cases.
Directions
The Supreme Court set 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. However, the conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, was upheld, but since the appellant had already served the sentence for this charge, he was directed to be released from jail forthwith if not required in any other case.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There is no discussion of specific amendments in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the prosecution must prove the intention and knowledge to commit an offence beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases of attempt to murder. The Court emphasized that a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires proof of intention or knowledge to cause death, and a conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, requires proof of the use of the firearm. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position regarding the burden of proof in criminal cases and the need for concrete evidence to support convictions.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, acquitting Vasudev Shukla of the charges under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, due to lack of sufficient evidence and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, but ordered the appellant’s release as he had already served the sentence for this charge. This judgment underscores the importance of the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the need for concrete evidence in criminal cases.
Source: Vasudev vs. State of M.P.