Recently, the Gujarat High Court set aside the charge of attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in a case involving celebratory firing during a wedding procession, holding that mere firing in the air without intention to cause harm does not constitute the offence.
The case arose from an FIR lodged in 2015 at Shahibaug Police Station, Ahmedabad, alleging that the accused persons fired shots in the air using a revolver and pistol during a wedding reception. The prosecution invoked Sections 307, 201, and 114 of the IPC along with Sections 3 and 25(1)(B)(A) of the Arms Act. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court. The accused filed an application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC, which was rejected by the Sessions Court, prompting the present revision before the High Court.
The Applicants contended that the essential ingredients of Section 307 IPC were not satisfied, as the firing was done in the air during a customary wedding procession without any intention to cause injury. They also argued that one of the accused possessed a valid arms licence, making the application of Arms Act provisions questionable.
The State, on the other hand, supported the Sessions Court’s order and argued that firing in a public place could potentially endanger life and justified framing of charges under Section 307 IPC.
The High Court observed that for an offence under Section 307 IPC, intention or knowledge to cause death is a crucial element, which must be inferred from surrounding circumstances. It noted that the firing occurred during a wedding and was part of a customary practice, with no evidence suggesting intent to harm anyone. The Court held that mere possibility of injury due to misfire is based on presumption and cannot substitute the requirement of intention. It emphasised that “without any intention to cause injury, firing in air does not amount to attempt to murder.”
The Court partly allowed the revision application and quashed the Sessions Court’s order to the extent it framed a charge under Section 307 IPC. However, it clarified that proceedings for other offences under the IPC and the Arms Act would continue.
Picture Source :
