High Court Acquittal on Attempt to Murder is Set Aside; Trial Court Conviction Restored with Reduced Sentence

A bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti heard the State of Himachal Pradesh's criminal appeal challenging the High Court's decision that had acquitted the accused of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC but had convicted him under Section 326 IPC. The appeal questioned whether the High Court was right to overturn the trial court's conviction for an offence under Section 307 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 14.07.2014 and restored the trial court's conviction under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, but reduced the sentence to the period already undergone (about one year five months) in place of the seven years' rigorous imprisonment originally imposed. The Court found that the accused had fired his service weapon indiscriminately and that the nature of the act established the requisite intention or knowledge to cause death. The Court noted that the High Court had “overlooked these crucial aspects” when acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 307 IPC. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It may be emphasized that to attract Section 307 IPC, it was not necessary that the hurt should be grievous or of any particular degree. If hurt of any nature was caused and it was proved that there was intention or knowledge to cause death, Section 307 IPC would stand attracted." The Court also recorded that the accused had "fired indiscriminately with his service weapon AK-47 knowing fully well that the bullets may cause bodily injury to any of his colleagues, which further may in all probability cause death."

Background The incident occurred on 05.11.2010, a Diwali night, when the accused, posted as a guard at the Company Headquarters of 2nd Indian Reserve Battalion in District Chamba, objected to mess food and became agitated. After his duty ended at about 9 p.m., he allegedly opened fire with his AK-47 upon colleagues. Head Constable Sanjeet Kumar (PW-2) sustained four gunshot wounds — two on each upper thigh — which were described as grievous though not life-threatening. Seven empty cartridges were recovered. The accused was overpowered in the dormitory and his rifle was seized. An FIR (No. 107 dated 06.11.2010) was lodged and a final report charged the accused under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The trial court convicted the accused for an offence under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment plus concurrent punishment under the Arms Act. On appeal, the High Court reversed the conviction under Section 307 and convicted him under Section 326 IPC instead, observing that the intention to cause death was not established. The State obtained special leave to appeal.

The Supreme Court examined the evidence, including medical testimony that the injured had suffered four wounds, eyewitness accounts that the accused fired more than once, and the fact that the accused, as a disciplined force member, knew the lethality of an AK-47. The Court relied on precedents which held that the court must assess whether the act was done with intention or knowledge to cause death, irrespective of whether the injury ultimately endangered life. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's orders dated 14.07.2014 and 28.07.2014, restored the trial court judgment dated 20.03.2013, but, in view of mitigating factors, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. No further interim directions were issued.

Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 476 OF 2015 (2025 INSC 503) Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shamsher Singh Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Shri Raj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Advocate