Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the State’s challenge to acquittal of eight accused and reduction of the gunman’s conviction from murder to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I. Omnibus assault allegations were not supported by the medical evidence. On the circumstances of the single shot to the back of the thigh, the Court sustained the finding of intent to cause bodily injury likely to cause death rather than intent to murder.
Issues
- Whether the evidentiary record justified reversing the acquittals or restoring the murder conviction of the gunman.
Provisions considered
- Section 304, Part I, Indian Penal Code, 1860Sustained culpable-homicide liability on the facts because the gunman intended bodily injury likely to cause death, while the inferred intention did not extend to murder. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Held
- The eyewitness gave general allegations of participation without identifying who caused his particular injuries. Neither his injuries nor those of the deceased supported the alleged sharp-edged-weapon assault. The deceased’s assertion of lathi blows was also unsupported by the medical findings. Liability of accused 2 to 9 was not established sufficiently to disturb their acquittals. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The gunman’s overt act was corroborated by medical evidence and the dying declaration. The location and close-range character of the single thigh wound supported the High Court’s conclusion on intention in these circumstances. The Section 304 Part I conviction and ten-year rigorous-imprisonment disposition required no interference. (¶¶ 5, 8, 9, 10)
Result
State appeal dismissed. Acquittals of respondents 2 to 9 and respondent 1’s conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I left undisturbed.