Holding

A conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained where the evidence does not unmistakably establish the accused's intent to kill and an overt act, and the trial court's acquittal must stand.

Summary

The appellant and co-accused were alleged to have attacked four youths with knives and lathis on a night in May 1994, leading to an FIR filed by the victims' father who was not an eye‑witness. The trial court acquitted all accused due to lack of clear evidence of who inflicted the stab injuries and the absence of a motive, but the High Court reversed this, convicting the appellant under Section 307 IPC. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution evidence unmistakably established the appellant's intent to kill and an overt act in furtherance of that intent. It found serious inconsistencies in the testimonies of the injured witnesses, contradictory statements about the weapons used, and the FIR being based on hearsay without any recorded statements of the alleged eye‑witnesses. The Court held that the chain of evidence was incomplete and did not satisfy the legal requirement for conviction under Section 307. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s conviction, restored the trial court’s acquittal, and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the material on record unmistakably justifies conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the IPC
Whether the prosecution evidence establishes the requisite intent and overt act for an attempt to murder
Whether an FIR lodged by a hearsay witness can support a conviction without corroborative statements
Whether the inconsistencies in witness testimonies create reasonable doubt warranting acquittal

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 164, s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

Attempt to murderIntent coupled with some overt actOral testimonies of the witnessesHearsay witnessChain of evidenceReasoned orderMisreading of the evidence

Judgment

[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1147 : 2024 INSC 633

Raju and Another
v.
State of Uttarakhand
(Criminal Appeal No. 1151 of 2010)
31 July 2024
[Surya Kant,* Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the material on record unmistakably justifies the conviction
of the appellant u/s. 307 IPC.

Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 307 – Attempt to murder – Prosecution
case that appellants armed with knives and lathis inflicted
injuries to the victims – Registration of FIR by complainant to
whom the incident was narrated later – Trial court acquitted
the appellant and his co-accused, however, the High Court
sentenced the appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous
imprisonment for seven years and upheld acquittal of other
two accused – Correctness:
Held: Conviction u/s. 307 may be justified only if the accused
possessed intent coupled with some overt act in aid of its
execution – Ascertaining the intention to kill or having the knowledge
that death may be caused as a result of the overt act, is a question
of fact and hinges on the unique circumstances that each case
may present – Chain of evidence proffered by the prosecution
has to be as complete as is humanly possible and it does not
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must instead, indicate that the act
had indeed been singularly committed by the accused only – On
facts, having analysed the evidence on record, there are several
gaps in the prosecution story – Prosecution story has been
demolished by the oral testimonies of the witnesses, including the
medical experts, coupled with the contents of the FIR registered
by a hearsay witness – There is no motive attributed to the
appellant or his co-accused in order to justify their conviction u/s.
307 – It is not even the prosecution’s case that this was a chance
occurrence – High Court ought to have given due weightage to the
glaring inconsistencies, before reversing a well-reasoned order of

* Author
1148 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

acquittal – When the trial court has acquitted the accused based
on a plausible understanding of the evidence, and such finding is
not marred by perversity or due to overlooking or misreading of the
evidence presented by the prosecution, the High Court ought not
to overturn such an order of acquittal – Trial court, after reviewing
the entire evidence on record, was correct in concluding that the
totality of circumstances casts doubt on the alleged incident and
suggests that the prosecution witnesses may have concealed
the actual story – Thus, not safe to convict the appellant on the
basis of such laconic evidence – Appellant is acquitted – Order of
conviction by the High Court set aside, and that of the trial court
restored in so far as the appellant is concerned. [Paras 7, 9, 14-17]

Case Law Cited
State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983) 2 SCC 28; Vasant
Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra [2004] 2 SCR 861 : AIR
2004 SC 2678; Andhra Pradesh v. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna
Reddy (2018) 7 SCC 623; Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh
[1952] 1 SCR 1091; Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1972 SC 656; Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,
1984 AIR 1622; Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab [2010] 1 SCR
642 : (2010) 2 SCC 333; Ballu @ Balram v. The State of Madhya
Pradesh [2024] 4 SCR 48 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Attempt to murder; Intent coupled with some overt act; Oral
testimonies of the witnesses; Hearsay witness; Chain of evidence;
Reasoned order; Misreading of the evidence.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1151
of 2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2009 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in GA No. 1458 of 2001
Appearances for Parties
Anuvrat Sharma, Ms. Alka Sinha, Advs. for the Appellants.
Advitiya Awasthi, Akshat Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1149

Raju and Another v. State of Uttarakhand

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment
Surya Kant, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2009
passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (hereinafter,
‘High Court’) in Appeal No. 1458/2001, whereby the judgment and
order dated 13.10.1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special
Judge, Dehradun (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’) in S.T. No. 116/1994
was substantially set aside and the Appellant was convicted under
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) and
sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along
with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
Facts:
2. At this juncture, it is essential to outline the factual matrix as described
in the FIR to clearly understand the context of the instant appeal.
2.1. On 08.05.1994, Farzan Ali, the Complainant, filed an FIR being
Case Crime No. 84/1994 at the Vikasnagar Police Station,
Dehradun, recounting the events of the previous night. He
reported that his son Imran, along with his friends Mathu, Irfan,
and Jakir, had gone for a late-night cinema show in Vikasnagar.
On their return around 12:30 a.m., they saw the Appellant and
the other accused—Raju, Bhola Ram, Manoj, and Suresh —
standing near Gopal’s house. The Appellant and Bhola Ram
were armed with knives, while Manoj and Suresh were carrying
dandas/lathis. The accused were seen in the light of a singular
bulb lit in front of Devdutt’s house.
2.2. The FIR states that Mathu and Imran inquired from the accused
persons as to why they had assembled there, which allegedly
infuriated them and they (accused) started hurling abuses at
them and assaulted Imran, Mathu, Irfan and Jakir. Imran and
Mathu were attacked with knives and lathis, whereas Irfan and
Jakir suffered injuries as they tried to save them. Thereafter,
presuming Imran and Mathu to be dead, the accused fled from
the place of incidence. The Complainant further detailed that
Jakir and Irfan came to his house and narrated the entire incident
to him. This formed the basis for the Complaint at Vikasnagar
Police Station and the said FIR was registered.
1150 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

2.3. The investigating officer commenced the investigation, followed
by a chargesheet. The Trial Court thereafter framed charges
for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section
34 of the IPC, against the Appellant and the other accused.
The Trial Court, evaluated the statements of the prosecution
witnesses, sought the medical opinion to be brought on record,
analysed the statement of the investigating officer, recorded
the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC,
and decided to acquit the Appellant and his co-accused vide
judgment dated 13.10.1995.
2.4. The State felt aggrieved and challenged the acquittal of the
Appellant and other accused before the High Court. The High
Court, as already mentioned in the opening paragraph, partially
allowed the appeal, sentenced the Appellant and one of his
co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and
confirmed the acquittal of the other two accused.
2.5. We have heard Learned Counsel(s) for the parties at a
considerable length and perused the trial record with their able
assistance.
Contentions of Parties
3. Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, learned counsel representing the Appellant,
while assailing the reversal of acquittal, contended that the High
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record due to which
it arrived at an erroneous finding. Mr. Sharma impressed that the
Complainant, Farzan, was not an eye-witness to the alleged incident.
He admittedly arrived at the scene only after being told about it.
Learned counsel highlighted the glaring contradictions between the
account provided in the FIR and the testimonies of the witnesses,
as recorded by the Trial Court.
4. Mr. Sharma argued that the Trial Court, on the other hand, had
considered the absence of discernible evidence to prove that the
Appellant and another accused were holding knives and had caused
stab injuries. In the same vein, he contended that the testimonies
of the injured witnesses and medical experts, combined with
the inconsistencies in the Complainant’s account, have unfolded
significant gaps in the investigation conducted.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1151

Raju and Another v. State of Uttarakhand

5. Per contra, Mr. Advitiya Awasthi, learned State Counsel urged that
the Appellant, along with the other accused, Bhola, voluntarily inflicted
injuries upon Mathu and Imran with a knife, with the intention to cause
death. He asserted that the injured witness Mathu, in his testimony,
stated that at the time of the incident, both, the Appellant and Bhola
were armed with knives. This testimony, he argued, aligned with the
opinion of the medical expert, who had opined that Mathu’s injuries
had been caused by some sharp object.
6. The singular question that requires our deliberation is whether the
material on record unmistakably justifies the conviction of the Appellant
under Section 307 of the IPC?
Analysis
7. To begin with, it would be apposite to recount the settled proposition
of law that a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC may be justified
only if the accused in question possessed intent coupled with some
overt act in aid of its execution.1 Ascertaining the intention to kill or
having the knowledge that death may be caused as a result of the
overt act, is a question of fact and hinges on the unique circumstances
that each case may present. Though these fundamentals have been
established in a plethora of decisions across several decades, we
have briefly mentioned the same to ensure a lucid understanding
of the rationale behind the instant decision.
8. Keeping these principles in mind, the intention of the Appellant in this
context may perhaps be ascertained through the material on record,
consisting the testimonies of the witnesses; medical opinion and the
very first version of events contained in the FIR itself.
9. Having analysed the evidence on record, we find that there are
several gaps in the prosecution story. We say so for the reasons
that, firstly, the testimonies of PW2 and PW3, Mathu and Imran, are
inherently contradictory to the narrative of the prosecution, insofar
as the sequence of events and the roles attributed to the accused
persons are concerned. Mathu for instance, admitted during his cross
examination that he could not identify as to who among the accused
persons inflicted stab wounds and who used lathis.

1 State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983) 2 SCC 28; Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2004 SC 2678.
1152 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

10. Secondly, the other injured witness, namely Imran, had initially testified
that all the four accused persons were found standing near Gopal’s
house, with the Appellant and Bhola carrying knives and Manoj and
Suresh holding lathis. However, upon being cross-examined, he
changed his position, claiming that Bhola and the Appellant lashed
them with lathis while the other two accused arrived at the place of
incidence from the direction of their house. Given the incertitude in
regards to the roles attributed to the accused persons, the conviction
of the Appellant or his co-accused by the High Court becomes all
the more questionable.
11. Thirdly, there seems to be consequential disparity in the oral evidence
adduced by witnesses; the medical reports and the opinions, in terms
of the nature of injuries suffered by Mathu and Imran. Specifically,
it is undisputed that the injuries suffered by the victims were not
caused by lathis or a blunt weapon. Similarly, the evidence regarding
the placement and extent of knife injuries sustained by Mathu and
Imran does not inspire confidence. Hence, the questions surrounding
the use of lathis or knives have undermined the prosecution case,
just as they have cast doubt on the extent and nature of injuries
sustained by the injured witnesses.
12. Fourthly, and most importantly, what makes the circumstances
entirely murky is the fact that the FIR itself was lodged by a hearsay
witness, namely, PW1 Farzan, who is Imran’s father. Notably, Farzan
was not present at the scene and only learned about the incident
through alleged eye-witnesses Jakir and Irfan, both of whom had
accompanied Imran and Mathu when the latter were allegedly
attacked by the Appellant and other accused persons. Ironically,
there is not even a whisper about the alleged eye-witnesses, Jakir
and Irfan joining the investigation. These persons were apparently
ghost witnesses who neither had their statements recorded by the
Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the CrPC nor were they
produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. Similarly, no
attempt was made to record their version under Section 164, CrPC.
The discrepancies elucidated above could have been clarified with
ease had these eye-witnesses been produced or their statements
recorded, shedding light on the sequence of events as they unfolded.
The deafening absence of these two alleged eye-witnesses, in our
considered opinion, has considerably weakened the prosecution
case.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1153

Raju and Another v. State of Uttarakhand

13. Usually in matters involving criminality, discrepancies are bound to
be there in the account given by a witness, especially when there
is conspicuous disparity between the date of the incident and the
time of deposition. However, if the discrepancies are such that they
create serious doubt on the veracity of a witness, then the Court may
deduce and decline to rely on such evidence. This is especially true
when there are variations in the evidence tendered by prosecution
witnesses regarding the sequence of events as they have occurred.
Courts must exercise all the more care and conscientiousness when
such oral evidence may lean towards falsely implicating innocent
persons.2
14. Undoubtedly, there are glaring interludes which severely enfeeble
the case that the prosecution sought to present. The prosecution
story has been demolished by the oral testimonies of the witnesses,
including the medical experts, coupled with the contents of the FIR
registered by a hearsay witness. It goes without saying that the chain
of evidence proffered by the prosecution has to be as complete as
is humanly possible and it does not leave any reasonable ground for
a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
instead, indicate that the act had indeed been singularly committed
by the accused only.3
15. To further fan the flames, there is no motive attributed to the Appellant
or his co-accused Bhola, in order to justify their conviction under
Section 307 of the IPC. Both the injured witnesses, Imran and Mathu,
during their cross-examination, clearly explicated that there was no
enmity or ill will between them and the accused persons. It is not
even the prosecution’s case that this was a chance occurrence. It
seems that the accused and the alleged victims were familiar with
each other and had some kind of association. There is thus more
to this than meets the eye, and we are not entirely convinced of the
narrative presented and perceived by the prosecution.
16. In our considered view, the High Court ought to have given due
weightage to the glaring inconsistencies, before reversing a well-
reasoned order of acquittal. It is a well-established canon of law

2 Andhra Pradesh v. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy (2018) 7 SCC 623.
3 Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 1 SCR 1091; Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR
1972 SC 656; Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622.
1154 [2024] 7 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

that when the Trial Court has acquitted the accused based on a
plausible understanding of the evidence, and such finding is not
marred by perversity or due to overlooking or misreading of the
evidence presented by the prosecution, the High Court ought not
to overturn such an order of acquittal.4 We are inclined to hold that
the Trial Court, after reviewing the entire evidence on record, was
correct in concluding that the totality of circumstances casts doubt
on the alleged incident and suggests that the prosecution witnesses
may have concealed the actual story.
Conclusion and Directions
17. We, thus, find it quite unsafe to convict the Appellant on the basis of
such laconic evidence. Rather, we deem it appropriate to allow this
appeal and acquit the Appellant in FIR Case Crime No. 84/1994.
Accordingly, the order of conviction by the High Court dated
10.12.2009 is set aside, and that of the Trial Court dated 13.10.1995
is restored in so far as the Appellant is concerned. The bail bonds,
if any, furnished by the Appellant are hereby cancelled.
18. The present appeal is allowed in the above terms.

Result of the case: Appeal allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain

4 Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 2 SCC 333; Ballu@Balram v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
Crl. Appeal No. 1167.2018.