Section 307 IPC, Arms Act and the Burden of Proof: Judicial Scrutiny in State v. Gian & Ors.

Argued by:

I. Introduction

The judgment in State v. Gian & Ors. marks a significant contribution to the jurisprudence surrounding police encounters, use of deadly force, and prosecution under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with provisions of the Arms Act, 1959. Delivered on 09.10.2025 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, the case involved serious allegations of attempted murder on a police party during a chase linked to a murder investigation.

The decision examines several vital questions of criminal law — including the evidentiary weight of police testimony, admissibility of recovery evidence, inconsistencies in witness depositions, and the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction under Section 307 IPC.

II. Factual Background

On 10 January 2023, a police team led by Inspector Parteek Kumar (PW7) was conducting an investigation into an earlier murder case (FIR No. 09 of 2023 under Section 302 IPC). Based on a tip-off, the team set up a nakabandi (checkpost) near Jyotisar Canal, Kurukshetra.

A Swift car without a number plate, allegedly carrying the suspects, broke through the barricade and shots were reportedly fired at the police. The police retaliated, and in the ensuing exchange, one accused (Manish) sustained a gunshot injury. All five accused — Gian, Sunil Kumar, Vikramjeet, Manish, and Vikram — were apprehended and charged under Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

III. Legal Issues Before the Court

1. Whether the prosecution successfully proved that the accused fired upon the police with intent to kill, thereby attracting Section 307 IPC.
2. Whether the recovery of weapons and ballistic evidence could be relied upon given alleged inconsistencies in the investigation.
3. Whether procedural lapses in recording witness statements and FIR timing undermined the prosecution’s case.
4. The relevance of prior enmity or motive in a prosecution under Section 307 IPC.

IV. Prosecution’s Case and Evidence

The prosecution examined 21 witnesses and produced extensive documentary evidence including recovery memos, forensic reports, and ballistic test. Key testimonies included:

• PW5 SI Daljeet Singh and PW6 HC Lalit: Both officers described the chase, the accused’s firing, and the police’s retaliatory shots. They also deposed to the seizure of weapons.
• PW4 ASI Gurdev Singh: Confirmed that empty cartridges and a live round were recovered at the scene.
• Medical witnesses (PW11, PW20, PW21): Verified the gunshot injury sustained by accused Manish.
• Ballistic evidence (Ex.P36, Ex.P50): Confirmed the use of firearms but did not conclusively link the cartridges to the accused’s weapons.

V. Defence Arguments and Cross-Examination Revelations

The defence raised several serious challenges, focusing on procedural irregularities and evidentiary gaps:

• Contradictions in Police Testimony: Multiple officers gave inconsistent accounts about the timing of events, number of shots fired, and presence of witnesses. PW4 admitted that no new facts emerged from the disclosure statement of accused.
• Doubtful Recovery Process: PW5 and PW6 admitted that several facts they claimed in court were not recorded in their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements. This raised concerns about the veracity of the recovery process.
• Delayed FIR and Rukka Transmission: The FIR was registered several hours after the alleged incident, weakening the prosecution’s timeline.
• No Independent Witnesses: Despite the incident occurring in a public area, no independent witnesses were examined — a factor courts often view critically in encounter-related cases.

The defence argued that the case was fabricated to bolster the murder investigation in FIR No. 09/2023 and that the accused were arrested elsewhere and falsely implicated.

VI. Judicial Reasoning and Findings

The court meticulously analyzed the prosecution’s evidence vis-à-vis the standards laid down for Section 307 IPC. Key judicial observations included:

1. Intention or Knowledge is Crucial: Citing Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar (AIR 1965 SC 843), the court reiterated that mere firing is insufficient to attract Section 307 unless there is clear evidence of intent to kill.
2. Contradictions Weaken Prosecution: Following State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram [(2012) 1 SCC 602]*, the court emphasized that material contradictions and omissions in police depositions create reasonable doubt.
3. Recovery Evidence Requires Corroboration: Relying on V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand [(2015) 9 SCC 588]*, the court held that inconsistencies between deposition and Section 161 statements diminish the probative value of recovery evidence.
4. Benefit of Doubt Must Prevail: As reaffirmed in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]*, when the chain of circumstances is incomplete or doubtful, the accused must receive the benefit of doubt.

Ultimately, the court acquitted the accused of charges under Section 307 IPC, holding that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had fired with the intent to kill. However, convictions under Sections 25/27 Arms Act were maintained where recoveries were sufficiently proved.

VII. Legal and Constitutional Implications

This judgment underscores several important principles of criminal justice:

• Scrutiny of Police Encounters: Courts must adopt heightened scrutiny in encounter cases, especially where evidence relies heavily on police testimony.
• Procedural Integrity: Investigations must comply strictly with Section 161 Cr.P.C. and chain-of-custody protocols to ensure the credibility of evidence.
• Human Rights Concerns: The decision aligns with constitutional protections under Article 21 and judicial directions in PUCL v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 10 SCC 635]*, which mandate independent scrutiny of encounter killings.

VIII. Conclusion

The State v. Gian & Ors. judgment reiterates that criminal prosecutions — especially in cases alleging attempts to murder police officers — cannot rest solely on uncorroborated police testimony. It highlights the judiciary’s role as the ultimate sentinel of constitutional rights, ensuring that state power does not override due process.

While the case raises serious questions about investigative standards and encounter narratives, it also serves as a vital precedent reaffirming the principle that “suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof.”

Key Case Laws Cited

1. Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843 – Intention essential for Section 307 IPC.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram, (2012) 1 SCC 602 – Contradictions and omissions weaken prosecution.
3. V.K. Mishra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2015) 9 SCC 588 – Evidentiary value of contradictions in Section 161 statements.
4. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Benefit of doubt principle.
5. PUCL v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 10 SCC 635 – Guidelines for encounter killings.