VASUDEV versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 514 · Decided: 01-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: INDIRA BANERJEE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 514
514
VASUDEV
v.
STATE of M.P.
(Criminal Appeal No. 388 of 2021)
FEBRUARY 1, 2022
[INDIRA BANERJEE AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss.307/34 – Arms Act – s. 3/25(1B)(a)
and s. 27/34 – The case of prosecution that Sub-Inspector (PW-6)
along with SDOP (PW-10) reached a village on having information
that an absconding accused ‘R’ was hiding with his associate
members – The accused persons were hiding in a house – PW-10
challenged the accused to surrender – However, the accused persons
opened fire on the police from inside the house – After retaliation
from the police parties, the accused ‘R’ expressed his wish to
surrender – Accordingly, the accused ‘R’ along with accused/
appellant surrendered before the police – After surrendering, one
315 bore rifle along with 19 live cartridges and 5 empty cartridges
were recovered from ‘R’ and one 12 bore double barrel gun along
with 20 live cartridges and 7 empty cartridges were recovered from
accused/appellant – The Trial Court convicted the accused persons
u/s. 307/34 IPC r/w. s.3/25(1B)(a) and s.27 of the Arms Act –
Aggrieved, both the accused persons filed appeal before the High
Court – During the pendency of appeal, accused ‘R’ died and his
appeal was dismissed as abated – The High Court confirmed the
judgment of the Trial Court and the remaining appeal of the
appellant/accused was dismissed – On appeal, held; As per the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses PW-4, PW-5, PW -10, PW-
14 and PW-16, it is apparent that an information of hiding by the
deceased accused with his associate in a house was received,
however, in their statements it is not said that appellant was with
him – Further, PW-5 in cross-examination said that the firing was
towards the hill area and not towards the police party – None of the
witnesses saw appellant firing on police – So as per the said
testimony, it is apparent that the intention and knowledge to commit
an act by them towards the policy party was not proved beyond
reasonable doubt – The arrest, seizure were prepared at the police
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
515
station and not on spot – Three independent witnesses, PW-7, PW-8
and PW-13 did not supported the case of prosecution – Further, as
per FSL report, the right barrel of 12 bore gun, fire could not be
done and the empty catridges, which were received were not fired
from the left barrel – Therefore, use of 12 bore gun is not proved –
Considring all these aspects, the ingredients of s.307/34 IPC and
s.27 of the Arms Act were not proved by the prosecution beyond the
reasonable doubt, proving the guilt of the appellant – The Trial
Court and the High Court committed error in convicting the appellant
u/s. 307/34 IPC r/w s.27 Arms Act – Therefore, the conviction and
sentence for the said charges are set aside, except of the charge u/
s. 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: First of all, it is required to be seen what are the
ingredients to prove an offence under Section 307 of IPC. On
perusal of the provisions, it is apparent that whoever does any
act, with intention or knowledge, which may cause death and in
furtherance to the said intention and knowledge, he was doing an
act towards it. However, it is required to be seen by the evidence
brought on record by the prosecution whether the ingredients to
prove, the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the
charge under Section 307/34 IPC have been established. In this
regard, the star witnesses of the prosecution are ASI (PW 4),
H.C. (PW5), SDOP (PW10), H.C. (PW14), S.I. (PW15) and S.I.
(PW16). As per their testimonies, it is apparent that an information
of hiding by the deceased accused ‘R’ with his associates in a
house of village Mahoi Kala was received. In their statements, it
is not said that appellant was with him. The police personnel of
nearby police stations were called at Village Mahoi Kala.
Thereafter, under the command of S.D.O.P. (PW10), police parties
were prepared to apprehend the accused. The police parties were
deputed in different directions and warning to surrender was given
to ‘R’. On such warning, as stated by them, firing was made from
inside the house. H.C.(PW5) in cross examination clearly said
that the said firing was towards the hill area and not towards the
police party. None of the said prosecution witnesses have seen
the appellant firing on police party, with intention or knowledge
VASUDEV v. STATE of 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.