The single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that in cases of attempt on the life by firearm, there may be cases where the firing misses the target, and no injury is caused. In such cases, insistence on injury will not be justified. Where the injury has been sustained, the nature of it becomes relevant to determine the intention or knowledge of the assailant.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the FIR was lodged on the basis of the report of the injured in which it was alleged that when he was going from his home to deliver milk in the market, the appellant/accused [Bishambhar Yadav) opened fire on him from rear side as a result, he sustained injury near his eye and left hand. The FIR was registered under Sections 307/ 324 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against the appellant/accused. The trial court convicted the Appellant. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that the injured sustained a simple injury as per the injury report, therefore, Section 307 of the IPC is not attracted. It was furthermore contended that no independent witness supported the case of the prosecution.
Observations of the Court
The Hon’ble Court observed that the testimony provided by an injured witness should not be disregarded unless there is sufficient grounds to dispute the accuracy of his statement. The prompt reporting of the incident and the subsequent medical examination are two further elements that support the informant's testimony in this particular case. The motive behind committing an offense is not relevant to take into account in a criminal prosecution, with the exception of some situations where proof of fact is based on circumstantial evidence. There is absolutely no evidence in this instance to suggest that the informant was motivated by any outside factors to falsely implicate the accused.
It was furthermore observed that as per Section 134 of the Evidence Act, the quality of witnesses is more important than the number of witnesses. The court relied upon the judgment titled Rajesh Yadav and Anr. Vs State of U.P.
The court noted that if an act has the potential to kill the victim if it is not prevented or intercepted, then it qualifies as an attempt to murder. In cases of attempt on the life by firearm, there may be cases where the firing misses the target, and no injury is caused. In such circumstances, insisting on injury will not be acceptable. In cases when an injury has been suffered, the type of injury becomes important in determining the assailant's knowledge or intention. What matters is that the accused must have the knowledge or intention required for the crime to be considered murder. Second, the act has to have been performed. In the present case, the appellant had taken the penultimate step in committing the murder of the informant and it was only a fortuitous circumstance that the bullet did not find the intended target and caused only simple injury.
Based on these considerations, the court affirmed the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Bishambhar Yadav @ Bishambar Yadav V. The State of Jharkhand.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Case No: Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.762 of 2012
Advocate for the Appellant: Ms. Sugandha Khalkho, Amicus Curiae
Advocate for the State: Ms. Vandana Bharti, APP
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
