Allahabad High Court Rejects 'Attempt To Murder' Charge Citing Absence Of Grievous Injury And Fundamental Prosecution Flaws

"The prosecution’s version suffers from several material infirmities which cast a reasonable doubt on the very genesis and manner of the alleged occurrence." Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling, set aside the conviction of three appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), holding that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of an "attempt to murder" beyond reasonable doubt.

The bench presided by Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the case was riddled with fundamental inconsistencies, noting that the prosecution's narrative of a targeted shooting was fundamentally belied by the medical evidence and site inspection reports.

The appellants, Aarif Ali, Mohd Kamil, and Abdul Rauf, had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, for an alleged firing incident that occurred in 2006. The trial court had sentenced them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, relying on the testimony of the complainant who claimed the appellants fired at him with the intention to kill.

Court Examines Legal Standard For Section 307 IPC

The primary question before the court was whether the prosecution had established the necessary mens rea and overt acts required to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC. The court was also called upon to determine if the discrepancies in the prosecution's site plan and the medical records were sufficient to cast a shadow of reasonable doubt on the occurrence.

Lack Of Gravity In Injuries

The court meticulously analyzed the medical evidence, noting that the complainant suffered only superficial pellet injuries. The medical expert had neither recorded the depth of the wounds nor declared them "dangerous to life." The court emphasized that Section 307 requires an intention or knowledge that an act, in all probability, would cause death, and mere bodily injury is not enough to secure a conviction for attempted murder.

"The nature of the injuries shows that there were only superficial pellet injuries. It cannot be said that the accused have made an attempt to murder as defined under Section 307 IPC."

Discrepancies In Site Plan And Genesis

The investigating officer’s site plan showed a distance of 22 paces between the appellants' house and the complainant, a distance from which the country-made pistol would not cause the blackening around the wounds that the doctor observed. This, coupled with the prosecution's failure to recover any blood at the scene despite claims of profuse bleeding, rendered the complainant's account "impossible," the court noted.

"The site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer completely belies the testimonies of the eyewitnesses. The linear distance makes the close-range ocular narrative an impossibility."

Inconsistencies Regarding The FIR

The court further criticized the prosecution’s inconsistent account regarding the registration of the FIR. While the complainant claimed it was dictated on the way to the police station, his brother testified it was dictated at the station. These conflicting versions undermined the reliability of the entire prosecution case, especially as no independent witnesses were examined despite the incident occurring in a populated area.

Court Raps Trial Court For Perverse Findings

Justice Vidyarthi observed that the trial court reached "perverse" conclusions by speculating that the victim might have died if a better hospital were nearby. The High Court clarified that a trial judge cannot rely on conjecture to fill gaps in prosecution evidence. Furthermore, the court held that the trial court erred in drawing adverse inferences against the accused for not explaining injuries they sustained themselves, ignoring the duty of the court under Section 313 of the CrPC.

"The trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants without a proper appreciation of the prosecution evidence, which renders its judgment unsustainable in law."

The High Court ultimately allowed the criminal appeals, setting aside the trial court's order. The appellants, who were in custody, were directed to be released upon furnishing personal bonds and two sureties as required under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The court declined to rule on the appellant's claim of juvenility as it became an academic exercise following the acquittal.

Date of Decision: 25 August 2026