Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Accused in Attempted Murder Case, Highlights ‘Major Discrepancies’ in Evidence

Convictions under Section 307/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act overturned due to procedural errors and inconsistencies in witness testimonies.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, in a significant judgment, has overturned the convictions of Raj Singh, Virendra alias Maunarodh, and Vipin Tyagi, who were previously found guilty of attempted murder and illegal possession of firearms. The court, presided over by Justice Alok Kumar Verma, highlighted numerous procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, ultimately leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Discrepancies in Witness Testimonies:
Justice Verma noted substantial inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding critical details of the incident. “The place from which the appellants are said to have fired is not shown in the Site Plan, and there are contradictory statements regarding the positions of the police officers at the time of the shooting,” observed the court.

The court emphasized the absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the recovered firearms. “The recovered firearms, spent cartridges, and live cartridges were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory promptly, and there is no explanation for their custody from the time of recovery to submission,” stated Justice Verma. Additionally, the prosecution failed to produce samples of the seal used on the recovered articles, further weakening their case.

The judgment discussed the essential elements required to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and Section 25 of the Arms Act. Justice Verma reiterated that the prosecution must prove the intent to commit murder and the execution of an act towards it beyond reasonable doubt. “The numerous discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence, coupled with the lack of forensic corroboration, significantly undermine the reliability of their version,” the court held.

Justice Verma remarked, “The prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt due to the major discrepancies and missing forensic evidence.” He further added, “The place from where the accused allegedly fired is not shown in the Site Plan, leading to serious doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.”

The High Court’s decision to acquit Raj Singh, Virendra alias Maunarodh, and Vipin Tyagi underscores the critical importance of consistent and corroborative evidence in criminal convictions. This judgment serves as a reminder of the necessity for rigorous adherence to procedural requirements and the proper handling of forensic evidence in the pursuit of justice. The acquittal not only vindicates the accused but also sets a precedent emphasizing the need for thorough and reliable prosecution practices in criminal cases.

Date of Decision: 24th May, 2024