Supreme Court acquits accused of attempted murder due to lack of evidence: Vasudev vs. State of M.P. (2022) INSC 1352 (1 February 2022)

Date of the Judgment: 1 February 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 1352
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and J.K. Maheshwari, J.
Can a person be convicted of attempted murder if there is no clear evidence of their intention to cause death? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, overturning the conviction of an accused due to lack of sufficient evidence. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the intention or knowledge to commit an act that could lead to murder. This judgment underscores the importance of concrete evidence in criminal convictions. The bench consisted of Justices Indira Banerjee and J.K. Maheshwari, with the judgment authored by Justice J.K. Maheshwari.

Case Background

On June 15, 2006, police received information that Rajesh Shukla, an absconding accused, was hiding in the village of Mahoi Kala. The police, led by Sub-Divisional Officer Dr. Sanjay Agrawal, surrounded the house of Jhallu Kachhi where Rajesh Shukla was reportedly hiding. They asked Rajesh Shukla to surrender. Instead of surrendering, someone inside the house opened fire on the police. The police retaliated. After some time, Rajesh Shukla and the appellant, Vasudev Shukla, surrendered. Upon their surrender, the police recovered weapons and ammunition from both of them. Vasudev Shukla was found to be in possession of a 12 bore double barrel gun, along with 20 live cartridges and 7 empty cartridges.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted both Rajesh Shukla and Vasudev Shukla under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Sections 3/25(1B)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act. The Trial Court reasoned that the accused were aware of the police’s challenge to surrender, and instead of surrendering, they fired gunshots, which were retaliated by the police. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the Trial Court’s decision. However, Rajesh Shukla died on 19.02.2016, and his appeal was dismissed as abated. Vasudev Shukla’s appeal was dismissed, confirming the Trial Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The case involves the interpretation of the following legal provisions:

• Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with the offense of “attempt to murder.” It 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 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section deals with “acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.” It states, “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 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act: This section deals with the offense of possessing prohibited arms without a license.
• Section 27 of the Arms Act: This section deals with the offense of using arms in contravention of the law.

Arguments

Arguments by the Appellant (Vasudev Shukla):

• The appellant argued that there was no evidence to suggest that he was absconding. The information received by the police was regarding Rajesh Shukla hiding in the house of Jhallu Kachhi.
• The appellant contended that none of the prosecution witnesses saw him firing at the police with the intention or knowledge to cause death.
• The appellant emphasized that the FSL report indicated that the empty cartridges recovered were not fired from the 12 bore gun seized from him. The right barrel of the gun was cut and short, rendering it unusable, and the left barrel could not be matched with the empty cartridges.
• The appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Parsuram Pandey and others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 5068, to argue that the prosecution failed to prove the intention and knowledge to commit an act amounting to attempted murder.
• The appellant argued that the offense under Section 27 of the Arms Act was not made out because the gun seized from him was not used in the firing.
• The appellant contended that even if the offense under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act was made out, he had already served the sentence awarded by the Trial Court.

Arguments by the Respondent (State of M.P.):

• 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.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an offense under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed an offense under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Court:

• Parsuram Pandey and others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 5068 – The Supreme Court of India. The Court relied on this case to emphasize that the prosecution must prove the intention and knowledge to commit an act amounting to attempted murder.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court relied on Parsuram Pandey and others vs. State of Bihar, AIR 2004 SC 5068 to emphasize that the prosecution must prove the intention and knowledge to commit an act amounting to attempted murder.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the appellant was primarily influenced by the lack of concrete evidence proving his intention to commit murder and the absence of proof that he used the seized weapon. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not done in this case. The Court also noted that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and that the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a step-by-step analysis of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court first examined the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and found that none of them had seen the appellant firing at the police. The Court then considered the FSL report, which indicated that the gun seized from the appellant was not used in the firing. Finally, the Court noted that the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case. Based on this analysis, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court considered alternative interpretations of the evidence but rejected them due to the lack of concrete proof. The Court emphasized that convictions cannot be based on presumption but on solid evidence. The final decision was based on the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which it failed to do in this case.

The court held that “the intention and knowledge to commit an act by them towards the police party has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.” The court also noted, “the use of 12 bore gun which was seized from the appellant is not proved along with live and empty cartridges.” The court further stated, “the conviction cannot be based merely on the basis of presumption to rule out the presence of accused.”

There was no minority opinion in this case. The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, with Justice J.K. Maheshwari authoring the opinion.

The court analyzed the evidence presented by the prosecution and found it lacking in several aspects. The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not done in this case. The court also noted that the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was inconsistent and that the independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case. The court’s decision was based on a careful analysis of the facts and the law.

The implications of this judgment for future cases are significant. It reinforces the principle that convictions cannot be based on presumptions or weak evidence. The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment also highlights the importance of forensic evidence in criminal cases.

The Court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles in this case. The decision was based on established legal principles and the specific facts of the case.

Key Takeaways

• Convictions for serious offenses like attempted murder require strong evidence of intent and action.
• The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely on presumptions.
• Forensic evidence, like FSL reports, plays a crucial role in establishing guilt.
• Independent witnesses’ testimonies are critical in criminal cases.

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.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for attempted murder requires concrete evidence of intention and action, and the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment reinforces the existing legal principles and does not introduce any new legal positions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Vasudev vs. State of M.P. highlights the importance of concrete evidence in criminal convictions, particularly in cases of attempted murder. The Court acquitted the appellant, Vasudev Shukla, of charges under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act due to lack of sufficient evidence. This judgment underscores the principle that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and convictions cannot be based on presumptions or weak evidence.