In a recent judgment titled 'Raju and Another versus State of Uttarakhand', the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in a case where they were charged with attempt to murder under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The key issue in this case was the inability of the prosecution to establish the requisite intent to commit murder, coupled with discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.

Facts of the Case:  The FIR was based on hearsay evidence, and significant inconsistencies were observed in the statements of the injured victims and prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court, in its judgment, highlighted that a conviction under Section 307 IPC requires not just the occurrence of an overt act, but also clear intent to cause murder.

Nature of the Crime: 

The appellants were accused of attacking the victims with knives and lathis, causing injuries that led to charges under Section 307 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, Raju and another individual, had a premeditated intention to kill the victims. It was claimed that they attacked the victims with knives and lathis, inflicting injuries that could have been fatal.

Filing of the FIR: 

The FIR was based on hearsay evidence, and significant inconsistencies were observed in the statements of the injured victims and prosecution witnesses. . However, the FIR was filed not based on direct evidence but on what others claimed to have seen or heard.The Supreme Court, in its judgment, highlighted that a conviction under Section 307 IPC requires not just the occurrence of an overt act, but also clear intent to cause murder. 

Witness Statements:

The prosecution presented witnesses who testified that the appellants had attacked the victims. However, during cross-examination, significant discrepancies emerged in the witness testimonies, particularly regarding the sequence of events and the actual involvement of the appellants in the crime.

 Supreme Court Proceedings

1. 1. Inconsistencies in Testimonies: The defense highlighted the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court noted that the accounts given by the witnesses differed significantly, especially concerning the timeline of events. The variations were substantial enough to cast doubt on the reliability of the witnesses. 

   2. Lack of Intent: A critical element in securing a conviction under Section 307 IPC is proving the intent to kill. The Supreme Court emphasized that intent, coupled with an overt act towards executing the intent, is necessary for a conviction under this section. In this case, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary intent behind the attack. The injured victims, during their cross-examination, explicitly stated that there was no enmity or prior ill will between them and the accused. This lack of motive further weakened the prosecution's case.

   3. Motive and Relationship Between Parties: The Court observed that the prosecution had not established any motive for the crime. It was revealed during the trial that the accused and the victims were familiar with each other and had some level of association. The absence of a clear motive or evidence of enmity suggested that the incident might not have been as straightforward as the prosecution portrayed. The Court suspected that there was more to the story than what was presented, leading to doubts about the credibility of the allegations.

 Supreme Court's Observations

Doubts on Prosecution's Narrative: The Supreme Court, in its judgment, raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s narrative. The Justices expressed concern that the discrepancies in witness testimonies, combined with the lack of a clear motive, pointed towards the possibility of a false implication of the accused.

Discrepancies and Their Impact: The Court acknowledged that, some discrepancies in witness testimonies are common, particularly when there is a significant gap between the incident and the deposition. However, in this case, the inconsistencies were so glaring that they undermined the entire prosecution's case. The Court stressed 

The Court, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta, and Ujjal Bhuyan, noted that in criminal cases discrepancies in witness statements are common, especially when there is a significant time gap between the incident and the deposition. However, in this case, the discrepancies were severe enough to cast doubt on the credibility of the witness testimonies. The Court also pointed out that when discrepancies cast serious doubts on the veracity of the witnesses, the lack of motive and the absence of enmity between the accused and the victims, which further weakened the prosecution's case and may refuse to rely on such evidence.

Ultimately, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court’s decision to convict the appellants was set aside.

Acquittal of the Accused:

Given the lack of intent, the discrepancies in testimonies, and the absence of a clear motive, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellants. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a fundamental requirement for a criminal conviction. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction by the lower courts was set aside.

Investigation and Legal Proceedings

Importance of Intent in Section 307 IPC: This case underscores the critical importance of establishing intent in prosecutions under Section 307 IPC. The mere occurrence of an assault, even with potentially deadly weapons, is not sufficient for a conviction unless it is accompanied by clear intent to commit murder.

Role of Witness Credibility: The case also highlights the crucial role that witness credibility plays in criminal trials. Discrepancies and inconsistencies in witness statements can significantly weaken the prosecution's case, especially when they relate to the core elements of the alleged crime.

Judicial Caution Against False Implications: The judgment serves as a reminder for courts to be vigilant against the misuse of criminal law for personal vendettas or false implications. The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should be based on solid evidence and not on conjecture or hearsay.

Conclusion

The Raju and Another versus State of Uttarakhand case is a landmark judgment that reinforces the principles of criminal law, particularly the need for clear intent and credible evidence in securing a conviction under Section 307 IPC. The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit the accused highlights the judiciary's role in safeguarding the rights of individuals against wrongful prosecution and ensuring that justice is served based on facts and the law.

This case serves as a crucial precedent for future cases involving charges of attempt to murder, emphasizing the importance of a thorough and unbiased evaluation of evidence before reaching a verdict.

Case Title : Raju and Another versus State of Uttarakhand | Supreme Court of India |CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1151 OF 2010 | Decided on 31.07.2022 | Download Judgment - Click Here