Attempt to Murder Conviction Overturned: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Arms Act Case
The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated February 1, 2022, partially allowed the appeal of Vasudev by setting aside his conviction under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder) and Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, the Court upheld his conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act but noted that he had already served the sentence for that offense, thereby directing his immediate release.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an armed encounter between the police and an alleged absconding criminal, Rajesh Shukla, in the village of Mahoi Kala, Madhya Pradesh. The police received intelligence that Rajesh Shukla was hiding in the village along with his associates. A police team, led by Sub-Divisional Officer Dr. Sanjay Agrawal, surrounded the house of one Jhallu Kachhi, where the accused were allegedly hiding.
According to the prosecution, when the police challenged the accused to surrender, they opened fire. The police returned fire, leading to an exchange of gunfire. After some time, Rajesh Shukla and Vasudev surrendered, following which weapons and ammunition were recovered from them.
Charges and Trial Court Proceedings
The police charged both accused under:
- Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder)
- Section 3/25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act (Possession of firearms without a license)
- Section 27 of the Arms Act (Use of firearms in a crime)
The Trial Court convicted both accused, sentencing them to:
- Four years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC.
- Two years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 3/25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act.
- Three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
- All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Rajesh Shukla passed away during the pendency of the case, and his appeal was dismissed as abated. Vasudev, however, continued his legal battle.
Appeal Before the High Court
Vasudev challenged his conviction before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which upheld the Trial Court’s verdict in its entirety. The High Court reasoned that Vasudev had participated in the firing incident and that sufficient evidence supported his conviction.
Appeal Before the Supreme Court
Vasudev then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing:
- He was never seen firing at the police.
- His presence at the scene was not enough to convict him of attempt to murder.
- The forensic report did not conclusively prove that his weapon was used in the attack.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s (Vasudev’s) Arguments
Vasudev’s counsel contended:
- The police only received intelligence about Rajesh Shukla, not Vasudev.
- No witness saw Vasudev firing at the police.
- The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report did not conclusively match the bullets found at the scene with Vasudev’s weapon.
- Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.
Respondent’s (State of Madhya Pradesh) Arguments
The prosecution maintained:
- The police had surrounded the house, and gunfire was exchanged.
- Vasudev was present and later surrendered with a weapon.
- The Trial Court and High Court had correctly found him guilty based on circumstantial evidence.
Supreme Court’s Observations
On Attempt to Murder (Section 307 IPC)
The Court ruled:
“None of the prosecution witnesses have seen the appellant firing on the police party with an intention or knowledge to commit an offense.”
The Court also noted that:
“H.C. Akbar Singh Gaur (PW5) in cross-examination clearly said that the firing was towards the hill area and not towards the police party.”
Since there was no direct evidence linking Vasudev to the shooting, the Court held that his conviction under Section 307 IPC could not stand.
On Possession of Arms (Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act)
The Court upheld the conviction under this section, as Vasudev was found with an unlicensed firearm.
On Use of Arms (Section 27 of the Arms Act)
The Court noted discrepancies in the forensic report:
“The right barrel of the 12-bore gun seized from the appellant was cut and short, making it impossible to fire from this weapon. The empty cartridges had not been fired from the left barrel.”
Since the prosecution failed to prove that Vasudev’s weapon was used, his conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also set aside.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled:
- Vasudev was acquitted of charges under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
- His conviction under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act was upheld, but since he had already served the sentence, he was ordered to be released immediately.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling has critical implications:
- Burden of Proof: The judgment reiterates that the prosecution must prove intent and direct involvement in violent crimes beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Forensic Evidence: The Court emphasized that forensic reports must be conclusive to support a conviction under the Arms Act.
- Judicial Fairness: The decision showcases the Supreme Court’s commitment to ensuring that circumstantial evidence alone does not lead to wrongful convictions.
By setting aside the convictions under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, the Supreme Court ensured that Vasudev was not punished based on mere suspicion but only for proven offenses.
Petitioner Name: Vasudev.Respondent Name: State of Madhya Pradesh.Judgment By: Justice Indira Banerjee, Justice J.K. Maheshwari.Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.Judgment Date: 01-02-2022.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: vasudev-vs-state-of-madhya-prad-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-01-02-2022.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Indira Banerjee
See all petitions in Judgment by J.K. Maheshwari
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2022
See all petitions in 2022 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
