Conviction U/S 307 IPC Justified Only If Accused Possessed Intent Coupled With Some Overt Act In Aid Of Its Execution: SC Acquits Accused In 'Attempt To Murder' Case Of 1994

The Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the High Court where the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge ­was substantially set aside and the Appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The bench of Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed, “a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC may be justified only if the accused in question possessed intent coupled with some overt act in aid of its execution. 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.."

Advocate Anuvrat Sharma appeared for the Appellant and State Counsel Advitiya Awasthi appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

The Complainant Farzan Ali filed an FIR stating that his son Imran and his friends Mathu, Irfan, and Jakir were attacked by the Appellant and other accused, Raju, Bhola Ram, Manoj, and Suresh when they were returning from a late-night cinema show. The accused, who was armed with knives and lathis, assaulted Imran and Mathu, while Irfan and Jakir were injured when they tried to intervene. Believing Imran and Mathu to be dead, the accused fled. The trial Court acquitted the accused, but the High Court partially overturned the decision and sentenced the Appellant and one co-accused to seven years in prison.

The Court said, “It goes without saying that the chain of evidence proffered by the prosecution has to be as complete as is humanly possible and it does not leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must instead, indicate that the act had indeed been singularly committed by the accused only.”

The Court relied on the decision in Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 2 SCC 333 and observed, “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 Court noted that usually in matters involving criminality, discrepancies are bound to be there in the account given by a witness, especially when there is a conspicuous disparity between the date of the incident and the time of deposition. "However, if the discrepancies are such that they create serious doubt on the veracity of a witness, then the Court may deduce and decline to rely on such evidence. This is especially true when there are variations in the evidence tendered by prosecution witnesses regarding the sequence of events as they have occurred. Courts must exercise all the more care and conscientiousness when such oral evidence may lean towards falsely implicating innocent persons.”, it said.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order of conviction and acquitted the Appellant.

Finally, the Court allowed the Appeal.