Case Note & Summary
The appellants were convicted by the trial court under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit the murder of one Rahu Ram (PW 5) on 7 July 1986 at Sirsa. The prosecution case was that due to previous enmity, both accused came armed with pistols and tried to shoot Rahu Ram. Balwant Singh (A-2) caught hold of Rahu Ram, and in the scuffle his pistol fell. Chhotu (A-1) placed his pistol on Rahu Ram's chest, but the pistol did not fire. Rahu Ram sustained injuries, and the accused fled. The injured complainant and an eyewitness Ram Murti (PW 6) went to the police; FIR was lodged. The trial court, after examining the injured, the eyewitness, and the doctor, convicted both appellants and sentenced them to three years rigorous imprisonment and fine. On appeal, the appellants argued that the witnesses were untrustworthy, no independent witness was examined despite occurrence in a thickly populated area, and the FIR copy was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate after seven days without explanation, suggesting that the names of the accused were inserted later after recovery of pistols on 13 July 1986. The State supported the conviction. The Supreme Court noted that the injury sustained by Rahu Ram was corroborated by the doctor, but the crucial issue was identity. The court found that the unexplained delay in forwarding the FIR to the Illaqa Magistrate until 14 July 1986 lent credence to the defence suggestion that the witnesses could not identify the assailants. Considering previous enmity and lack of independent evidence, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence were quashed, and both appellants were acquitted, giving them benefit of doubt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Benefit of Doubt - Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 307 and 34 - The prosecution alleged that on 7 July 1986 at about 8.00 a.m., the appellants, armed with pistols, attempted to murder the injured complainant, but the pistol did not fire and the appellants fled. The trial court convicted both appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. On appeal, the Supreme Court found that the copy of the FIR was sent to the Illaqa Magistrate only on 14 July 1986, seven days after the incident, with no explanation from the investigating officer. In light of previous enmity between the parties and the absence of independent witnesses, the defence suggestion that the witnesses could not identify the assailants and that the names were inserted after recovery of weapons gained importance. Held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; both accused were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted, and the conviction and sentence were quashed (Paras 7-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution established the identity and complicity of the appellants in the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of unexplained seven-day delay in forwarding the FIR to the Illaqa Magistrate and previous enmity between the parties.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 23 May 1987 passed by the Additional Judge, Designated Court, Bhiwani at Sirsa, against both the appellants was quashed and set aside. Both the accused were given benefit of doubt and acquitted. Bail bonds of the accused were ordered to stand cancelled.
Law Points
- Unexplained delay in forwarding FIR to the Illaqa Magistrate without explanation may raise serious doubt about the identity of the accused
- prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
- benefit of doubt must be given to accused if identity and complicity are not established
- previous enmity and absence of independent witnesses further weaken prosecution case
- Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
- 1860 requires proof of common intention to attempt murder
