Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard a criminal appeal filed by three accused persons against the judgment of the Designated Court, Haryana, which had convicted and sentenced them for offences under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 6(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985. The prosecution case was that on 07-07-1986 at about 7:00 a.m., the accused, armed with guns and a pistol, fired upon Rajinder (PW5) and Kishan Lal (PW6) near the Panchayat Ghar, causing firearm injuries to them. Rajinder suffered an injury on his right shoulder and Kishan Lal on his right thigh. The injured were taken to Fatehabad hospital, and after obtaining the doctor's opinion, Inspector Jai Narain recorded the statement of Rajinder, leading to the registration of an FIR at Fatehabad Police Station. Investigation resulted in the arrest of Bhagirath and recovery of a licensed DBBL gun and his arms licence. The Designated Court framed charges under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 25 of the Arms Act, and Section 6(1) of TADA, and after trial found the appellants guilty, sentencing each to seven years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 307/34 IPC and Bhagirath additionally to two years under Section 27 Arms Act read with Section 6(1) TADA, with sentences to run concurrently. The appellants challenged the conviction and sentence before the Supreme Court. The main legal issues were whether the testimony of injured eyewitnesses was credible despite enmity arising from a previous murder case; whether the manner and angle of firing made the injuries improbable; whether the defense theory that Partap's firing could have caused the injuries was plausible; and whether the sentences were disproportionate. The appellants argued that the injured witnesses bore enmity because Jai Kishan and Rai Singh had been acquitted by the High Court in a murder case concerning Rajinder's father, and an appeal was pending in the Supreme Court. They also contended that firing from behind a bitora at a height of five feet could not cause the injuries described, and that Partap's firing of two shots in the air raised doubt about causation. They further submitted that the sentences were harsh. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the two injured eyewitnesses, medical evidence from Dr. R.S. Bishnoi confirming firearm injuries, and the prompt lodging of the FIR with specific roles attributed to each accused. The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence and held that the injured witnesses were trustworthy and that enmity alone was not sufficient to reject their testimony. The court observed that motive is a double-edged weapon and assumes secondary role when eyewitness testimony is acceptable. It found that there was sufficient daylight at the time of the incident, and the medical evidence corroborated the eyewitness accounts. The court also noted that the FIR was lodged at the earliest opportunity and contained detailed roles of the accused, corroborating the prosecution case. The alternative theory of Partap's firing causing injuries was rejected, as Partap had fired in the air to scare away the assailants and save the victims. The court held that the appellants attempted to commit murder and that no leniency in sentence was warranted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentences were upheld. The appellants, who were on bail, were directed to surrender to their bail bonds forthwith to serve out the remainder of their sentences.
Headnote
A) Criminal Trial - Witness Credibility - Injured Eye Witnesses and Motive - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 307/34; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 Section 6(1); Arms Act, 1959 Sections 25/27 - The appellants contended that the injured eyewitnesses were unreliable due to enmity arising from the previous murder case of the complainant's father. The Supreme Court held that enmity alone was insufficient to disbelieve injured witnesses and that motive is a double-edged weapon which assumes secondary role when eyewitness testimony is acceptable. Held that the evidence of Rajinder (PW5) and Kishan Lal (PW6) was trustworthy and could not be rejected on the ground of motive (Paras 6-7). B) Criminal Trial - Appreciation of Evidence - Manner and Angle of Firing - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 307/34; Arms Act, 1959 Sections 25/27 - The appellants argued that the alleged firing from behind a bitora at a height of five feet made the injuries improbable. The Supreme Court rejected this contention, holding that the injured witnesses gave detailed accounts of the firing, there was sufficient daylight at 7:00 a.m. in July, and medical evidence confirmed firearm injuries. Held that there was no reason to discard the evidence of the injured witnesses on this ground (Para 8). C) Criminal Trial - Defense Theory - Alternative Cause of Injuries - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 307/34 - The appellants argued that Partap's firing of two shots could have caused the injuries. The Supreme Court rejected this, accepting the prosecution story that Partap fired in the air to scare away the assailants while saving his uncle and brother. Held that there was no reason to take a different view from the trial court's acceptance of the prosecution account (Para 10). D) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Proportionality of Sentence for Attempt to Murder - Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 307/34; Arms Act, 1959 Sections 25/27; Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 Section 6(1) - The appellants argued that the sentences were disproportionate to the injuries sustained. The Supreme Court held that the appellants fired guns at the victims and it was their fortune that pellets missed vital organs; they attempted murder. Held that no leniency in sentence was called for and the appeal was dismissed (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 27 of the Arms Act, and Section 6(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 were legally sustainable; whether the evidence of injured eyewitnesses was credible despite enmity; whether the manner of firing and alternative theory of causation created reasonable doubt; and whether the sentences were disproportionate.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal appeal. The conviction and sentences imposed by the Designated Court under Sections 307/34 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act read with Section 6(1) of TADA were upheld. The appellants, who were on bail, were directed to surrender to their bail bonds forthwith to serve out the remainder of sentences.
Law Points
- Motive is a double edged weapon
- When prosecution relies upon eye witnesses motive assumes secondary role
- Testimony of injured eye witnesses is trustworthy
- Prompt FIR corroborates prosecution case
- Defense theory of alternative firing rejected
- Sentence under 307 IPC and Arms Act TADA upheld
- No leniency for attempt to murder
