Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said a conviction under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the IPC may be justified only if the accused in question possessed intent coupled with some overt act in aid of its execution.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan further said ascertaining the intention to kill or having the knowledge that death may be caused as a result of the overt act, is a question of fact and hinges on the unique circumstances that each case may present. 

The apex court explained the fundamentals, established in a plethora of cases since the Supreme Court's judgments in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, (1983) and Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (2004), while setting Uttarakhand High Court's 2009 judgment which reversed their acquittal by the trial court in 1995 case related to offences of attempt to murder and common intention.

"In our considered view, the High Court ought to have given due weightage to the glaring inconsistencies, before reversing a well-reasoned order of acquittal. It is a well-established canon of law that when the Trial Court has acquitted the accused based on a plausible understanding of the evidence, and such finding is not marred by perversity or due to overlooking or misreading of the evidence presented by the prosecution, the High Court ought not to overturn such an order of acquittal," the bench said.

The court also pointed out both the injured witnesses, Imran and Mathu, during their cross examination, clearly explicated that there was no enmity or ill will between them and the accused persons. 

"It is not even the prosecution’s case that this was a chance occurrence. It seems that the accused and the alleged victims were familiar with each other and had some kind of association. There is thus more to this than meets the eye, and we are not entirely convinced of the narrative presented and perceived by the prosecution," the bench said.

The High Court had convicted the appellant and another accused and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment to seven years and confirmed the acquittal of two others.

FIR in the case was lodged by Faizan Ali on May 8, 1994 with Dehradun's Vikas Nagar police station stating that his son Imran, along with his friends Mathu, Irfan, and Jakir, had gone for a late-night cinema show in Vikasnagar. On their return, they saw a group of people assembled at a place, they inquired as to reason of their gathering, the accused persons got infuriated with it and attacked them with knives and dandas.

The appellants counsel said the complainant was not an eye witness to the incident. He also highlighted the glaring contradictions between the account provided in the FIR and the testimonies of the witnesses, as recorded by the Trial Court. 

He said the testimonies of the injured witnesses and medical experts, combined with the inconsistencies in the complainant’s account, have unfolded significant gaps in the investigation conducted.

The state counsel said the appellant, along with the other accused, Bhola, voluntarily inflicted injuries upon Mathu and Imran with a knife, with the intention to cause death as per the testimony of the injured witness and the medical record.

Having analysed the evidence on record, the bench, however, found that there were several gaps in the prosecution story. The testimonies of Mathu and Imran, are inherently contradictory to the narrative of the prosecution, with regard to the sequence of events and the roles attributed to the accused persons.

Given the incertitude of roles of the accused persons, the conviction of the appellant or his co accused by the High Court becomes all the more questionable, it said.

The court also noted there seemed to be consequential disparity in the oral evidence adduced by witnesses; the medical reports and the opinions, in terms of the nature of injuries suffered by Mathu and Imran.

Court thus allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant by restoring the trial court's 1995 judgment.