Unexplained Injuries On Accused And Long Distance Firing Invalidate Section 307 IPC Conviction: Allahabad HC
Copy Link
Share
Save
Exposing critical gaps in the prosecution's narrative, the High Court set aside the Section 307 conviction of three men after finding that the alleged long-range firearm shot could not have produced close-range blackening wounds while the prosecution suppressed injuries sustained by the accused. The ruling reinforces that the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt cannot be cured by relying on the accused's inability to explain circumstances under Section 313.
In a common judgment, a single bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi set aside the conviction and seven-year rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellants by the trial court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appeals challenged the verdict of the Additional Sessions Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri, arising out of a 2006 incident involving an alleged firearm attack during a local quarrel.
Key Takeaways
Prosecution Must Stand On Its Own Legs: Failure to explain injuries on the accused creates severe doubt regarding the true genesis of the incident.
Medical Evidence Overriding Ocular Claims: Presence of wound blackening contradicts allegations of long-distance firing from 55-60 feet away.
No Adverse Inference Under Section 313: Omission by the court to question the accused on specific points prevents drawing negative inferences against them.
Strict Proof For Attempt To Murder: Section 307 IPC requires clear intention or knowledge coupled with an overt act capable of causing death.
Evaluating the medical evidence and site plan, the High Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC. The Court highlighted that blackening around wounds occurs exclusively from close-range firing, making the prosecution's claim of shots being fired from 22 steps away physically impossible.
The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In criminal jurisprudence, it is a time-tested proposition that the primary burden falls upon the shoulders of the prosecution and it is only if the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden beyond reasonable doubt that the burden shifts upon the accused to explain the evidence against him or to present a defence. In the present case, the version of the prosecution suffers from inherent inconsistencies and doubts, as discussed above, and in such a scenario, the inability of the appellant to explain certain circumstances could not be made the basis to relieve the prosecution from discharging its primary burden."
The Court has following directions:
"The appellants are in custody. They are directed to be released on furnishing personal bonds and two sureties as per the provision contained in Section 437-A Cr.P.C., for their appearance before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case any appeal is filed against this order and the Hon'ble Supreme Court issues notice of the appeal and the bonds shall hold good for a period of six months from today."
Ratio
To secure a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must conclusively establish intention or knowledge to cause death beyond reasonable doubt. Material contradictions between ocular testimony and forensic site plans, coupled with the complete non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused, create a reasonable doubt, the benefit of which must extend to the accused.
Background
The dispute originated from an incident on September 9, 2006, when the complainant filed an FIR alleging that the appellants fired at him with country-made pistols following a quarrel among children, causing pellet injuries to his face and chest. The trial court convicted the appellants under Section 307 IPC, reasoning that firing towards vital organs demonstrated an intention to kill.
On appeal, the appellants argued that the prosecution suppressed injuries sustained by accused Aarif, failed to explain material contradictions in the site plan, and falsely framed them. Applying the principles laid down in Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao v. State of A.P. ( "(2003) 12 SCC 306": 2003 CaseBase(SC) 255), Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, Iveco Magirus Brandschutztechnik GMBH v. Nirmal Kishore Bhartiya ( "(2024) 2 SCC 86": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 138), Sayarabano v. State of Maharashtra ( "(2007) 12 SCC 562": 2007 CaseBase(SC) 1401), and Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra ( "(2025) 8 SCC 315": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 598) regarding precedent applicability, evaluation of injured witness testimonies, and the primary burden of proof under the Code Of Criminal Procedure, the High Court concluded that the prosecution's version suffered from fatal infirmities. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeals and acquitted all the appellants.
Case Details:
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2048 of 2026
Case Title: Mohd Kamil Alias Guddu and another v. State of U.P.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shivam Sharma
For the Respondent(s): G.A., Jayant Singh Tomar, Additional Government Advocate - I
Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 877
Similar Articles
Breaking News
