Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Attempted Murder Case Under Arms Act

The case of Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh & Manoj Singh vs. The State of Bihar dealt with an appeal against a conviction under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, reaffirming the principle that the use of firearms causing hurt qualifies as an offense under both statutes.

Background of the Case

The appellants, Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh, were convicted for an incident involving firearm injuries sustained by the victim, Kumar Nandan Singh. The case arose from a land dispute, which escalated into a violent altercation.

Key events leading to the conviction:

October 10, 1999: The informant, Kumar Nandan Singh, was repairing a mud wall on his land when the appellants objected.
The altercation turned violent when the appellants allegedly fired gunshots at the informant, causing injuries to his hand and leg.
The case was registered under Sections 323, 307 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
December 22, 2006: The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them to five years of rigorous imprisonment along with three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
January 16, 2018: The Patna High Court modified the conviction to Section 324 IPC, reducing the sentence to two years but affirming the three-year term under the Arms Act.
2022: The appellants approached the Supreme Court, challenging their conviction.

Petitioners’ Arguments

Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, representing the appellants, argued:

“There was no recovery of firearms from the accused, nor any forensic evidence linking them to the bullets found at the scene. The conviction is based purely on witness testimonies, which contain contradictions.”

Key points raised:

The prosecution did not produce a seizure memo proving the recovery of firearms.
The delay in forwarding the First Information Report (FIR) to the Magistrate cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.
The witness statements had contradictions regarding the injuries and sequence of events.
The appellants had an alibi, and one was employed elsewhere at the time of the incident.

Respondents’ Arguments

The State of Bihar, represented by Advocate Abhinav Mukerji, opposed the appeal, contending:

“The prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants fired upon the victim, causing injuries. The lack of firearm recovery does not negate the eyewitness testimonies.”

Key counterarguments:

Multiple eyewitnesses confirmed that the appellants were armed with firearms at the scene.
The victim’s injuries were consistent with gunshot wounds as per the medical report.
The testimony of Dr. Himkar, the treating physician, corroborated the claim that the injuries were caused by firearm use.
Minor inconsistencies in witness statements do not negate the overall truthfulness of the prosecution’s case.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Chief Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, and Justice Hima Kohli, ruled against the appellants, stating:

“The presence of the appellants at the scene is well established. The injuries sustained by the victim align with firearm use. The absence of firearm recovery does not absolve the accused, as conviction can be based on eyewitness accounts and medical evidence.”

The Court upheld the findings that:

The medical report clearly indicated gunshot wounds.
Eyewitness testimonies were consistent in stating that the appellants fired at the victim.
The plea of alibi by one of the appellants was not supported by strong evidence.
The Trial Court and High Court correctly assessed the evidence and convicted the accused.

Final Ruling

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ruled:

The conviction under Section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act was justified.
The appellants shall serve the remaining sentence as imposed by the High Court.
The arguments regarding minor contradictions in witness statements did not warrant an acquittal.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the principle that lack of firearm recovery does not automatically nullify an attempted murder case. It emphasizes the significance of eyewitness testimonies and medical reports in securing convictions for firearm offenses.

Petitioner Name: Anuj Singh @ Ramanuj Singh & Manoj Singh.
Respondent Name: The State of Bihar.
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Krishna Murari, Justice Hima Kohli.
Place Of Incident: Bihar.
Judgment Date: 22-04-2022.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: anuj-singh-@-ramanuj-vs-the-state-of-bihar-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-22-04-2022.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 Fraud and Forgery
See all petitions in Judgment by N.V. Ramana
See all petitions in Judgment by Krishna Murari
See all petitions in Judgment by Hima Kohli
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 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