Summary
The appellant was convicted under Section 307 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for firing a country-made pistol at the complainant outside his house at night. The independent neighbours denied seeing the incident. The Court found the complainant's mother's evidence did not inspire confidence. She gave contradictory accounts of whether she saw the shooting, did not know the accused and could hardly have recognised him at night, and no identification parade was held. The seizure witnesses contradicted themselves or turned hostile. No pellet, cartridge or gunpowder residue was found at the spot, and no ballistic link to the seized pistol or motorcycle was shown. The courts below brushed aside the appellant's Section 313 defence of false implication through student-election rivalry and his alibi. The conviction was set aside.
Issues
- Whether convictions for attempt to murder and Arms Act offences could stand on the complainant's testimony and his mother's uncorroborated evidence, with doubtful recoveries and no link between the seized weapon and the incident.
- Whether the courts below properly considered the accused's defence and alibi put forward in his Section 313 CrPC examination.
Provisions considered
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The examination gives the accused a real opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances and is part of a fair trial under Article 21. His plausible defence of false implication and alibi had to be considered with reasons, not dismissed as an afterthought. (¶¶ 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30)
- Section 307 IPC; Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, Indian Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959The convictions were set aside because the evidence was insufficient to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 1, 31, 32, 33)
Held
- A close relative is not automatically an interested witness, but her evidence needs careful scrutiny. The complainant said his mother came only after the incident, while she gave conflicting versions of seeing it. She admitted not knowing the accused, gave no description of him and was unlikely to recognise him fleetingly at night, and no identification parade was held. Her evidence did not inspire confidence. (¶¶ 9, 10, 12, 13)
- One seizure witness denied any recovery of the motorcycle and was declared hostile, and the other contradicted himself on it. No pellet, empty cartridge or gunpowder residue was found at the spot, and without a ballistic report nothing linked the seized pistol to the incident. The complainant's vague description also did not link the motorcycle. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17)
- Section 313 CrPC is a valuable right forming part of a fair trial under Article 21, meant to create a direct dialogue between court and accused. Incriminating circumstances must be put to the accused separately, as bundling them defeats a fair opportunity. A lapse does not by itself vitiate the trial unless grave prejudice is shown. (¶¶ 19, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28)
- An accused need prove his defence only on a preponderance of probabilities, and once a plausible version is offered under Section 313 the prosecution must negate it. The courts below dismissed his alibi, supported by two witnesses, and his plea of false implication through student-election rivalry, without proper reasoning. (¶¶ 18, 22, 23, 24, 29, 30)
- With no independent corroboration, doubtful recoveries, no link between the seized items and the incident and an unanswered plausible defence, the case rested on conjecture. Guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (¶¶ 31, 32)
Result
Appeal allowed. The conviction and sentence are set aside and the appellant, who is on bail, is discharged from his bail bonds.