RAJU AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1147, Supreme Court of India, 2024
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1147 : 2024 INSC 633
Raju and Another 
v. 
State of Uttarakhand
(Criminal Appeal No. 1151 of 2010)
31 July 2024
[Surya Kant,* Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the material on record unmistakably justifies the conviction 
of the appellant u/s. 307 IPC.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 307 – Attempt to murder – Prosecution 
case that appellants armed with knives and lathis inflicted 
injuries to the victims – Registration of FIR by complainant to 
whom the incident was narrated later – Trial court acquitted 
the appellant and his co-accused, however, the High Court 
sentenced the appellant and one of his co-accused to rigorous 
imprisonment for seven years and upheld acquittal of other 
two accused – Correctness:
Held: Conviction u/s. 307 may be justified only if the accused 
possessed intent coupled with some overt act in aid of its 
execution – Ascertaining the intention to kill or having the knowledge 
that death may be caused as a result of the overt act, is a question 
of fact and hinges on the unique circumstances that each case 
may present – Chain of evidence proffered by the prosecution 
has to be as complete as is humanly possible and it does not 
leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the 
innocence of the accused and must instead, indicate  that the act 
had indeed been singularly committed by the accused only – On 
facts, having analysed the evidence on record, there are several 
gaps in
the prosecution story – Prosecution story has been 
demolished by the oral testimonies of the witnesses, including the 
medical experts, coupled with the contents of the FIR registered 
by a hearsay witness – There is no motive attributed to the 
appellant or his co-accused in order to justify their conviction u/s. 
307 – It is not even the prosecution’s case that this was a chance 
occurrence – High Court ought to have given due weightage to the 
glaring inconsistencies, before reversing a well-reasoned order of 
* Author
1148
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
acquittal – When the trial court has acquitted the accused based 
on a plausible understanding of the evidence, and such finding is 
not marred by perversity or due to overlooking or misreading of the 
evidence presented by the prosecution, the High Court ought not 
to overturn such an order of acquittal – Trial court, after reviewing 
the entire evidence on record, was correct in concluding that the 
totality of circumstances casts doubt on the alleged incident and 
suggests that the prosecution witnesses may have concealed 
the actual story – Thus, not safe to convict the appellant on the 
basis of such laconic evidence – Appellant is acquitted – Order of 
conviction by the High Court set aside, and that of the trial court 
restored in so far as the appellant is concerned. [Paras 7, 9, 14-17]
Case Law Cited
State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983) 2 SCC 28; Vasant 
Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra [2004] 2 SCR 861 : AIR 
2004 SC 2678; Andhra Pradesh v. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna 
Reddy (2018) 7 SCC 623; Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh 
[1952] 1 SCR 1091; Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 
1972 SC 656; Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 
1984 AIR 1622; Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab [2010] 1 SCR 
642 : (2010) 2 SCC 333; Ballu @ Balram v. The State of Madhya 
Pradesh [2024] 4 SCR 48 – referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Attempt to murder; Intent coupled with some overt act; Oral 
testimonies of the witnesses; Hearsay witness; Chain of evidence; 
Reasoned order; Misreading of the evidence. 
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1151 
of 2010
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2009 of the High Court 
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in GA No. 1458 of 2001
Appearances for Parties
Anuvrat Sharma, Ms. Alka Sinha, Advs. for the Appellants.
Advitiya Awasthi, Akshat Kumar, Advs. for the Respondent.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1149
Raju and Another v. State of Uttarakhand
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Surya Kant, J.
1.	
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.12.2009 
passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital (hereinafter, 
‘High Court’) in Appeal No. 1458/2001, whereby the judgment and 
order dated 13.10.1995 of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special 
Judge, Dehradun (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’) in S.T. No. 116/1994 
was substantially set aside and the Appellant was convicted under 
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’) and 
sentenced to undergo seven years of rigorous imprisonment, along 
with a fine of Rs. 1000/-.
Facts: 
2.	
At this juncture, it is essential to outline the factual matrix as described 
in the FIR to clearly understand the context of the instant appeal. 
2.1.	 On 08.05.1994, Farzan Ali, the Complainant, filed an FIR being 
Case Crime No. 84/1994 at the Vikasnagar Police Station, 
Dehradun, recounting the events of the previous night. He 
reported that his son Imran, along with his friends Mathu, Irfan, 
and Jakir, had gone for a late-night cinema show in Vikasnagar. 
On their return around 12:30 a.m., they saw the Appellant and 
the other accused—Raju, Bhola Ram, Manoj, and Suresh — 
standing near Gopal’s house.  The Appellant and Bhola Ram 
were armed with knives, while Manoj and Suresh were carrying 
dandas/lathis. The accused were seen in the light of a singular 
bulb lit in front of
Devdutt’s house.
2.2.	 The FIR states that Mathu and Imran inquired from the accused 
persons as to why they had assembled there, which allegedly 
infuriated them and they (accused) started hurling abuses at 
them and assaulted Imran, Mathu, Irfan and Jakir. Imran and 
Mathu were attacked with knives and lathis, whereas Irfan and 
Jakir suffered injuries as they tried to save them. Thereafter, 
presuming Imran and Mathu to be dead, the accused fled from 
the place of incidence. The Complainant further detailed that 
Jakir and Irfan came to his house and narrated the entire incident 
to him. This formed the basis for the Complaint at Vikasnagar 
Police Station and the said FIR was registered.
1150
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
2.3.	 The investigating officer commenced the investigation, followed 
by a chargesheet. The Trial Court thereafter framed charges 
for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 
34 of the IPC, against the Appellant and the other accused. 
The Trial Court, evaluated the statements of the prosecution 
witnesses, sought the medical opinion to be brought on record, 
analysed the statement of the investigating officer, recorded 
the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the CrPC, 
and decided to acquit the Appellant and his co-accused vide 
judgment dated 13.10.1995. 
2.4.	 The State felt aggrieved and challenged the acquittal of the 
Appellant and other accused before the High Court. The High 
Court, as already mentioned in the opening paragraph, partially 
allowed the appeal, sentenced the Appellant and one of his 
co-accused to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and 
confirmed the acquittal of the other two accused. 
2.5.	 We have heard Learned Counsel(s) for the parties at a 
considerable length and perused the trial record with their able 
assistance.
Contentions of Parties
3.	
Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, learned counsel representing the Appellant, 
while assailing the reversal of acquittal, contended that the High 
Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record due to which 
it arrived at an erroneous finding. Mr. Sharma impressed that the 
Complainant, Farzan, was not an eye-witness to the
alleged incident. 
He admittedly arrived at the scene only after being told about it. 
Learned counsel highlighted the glaring contradictions between the 
account provided in the FIR and the testimonies of the witnesses, 
as recorded by the Trial Court. 
4.	
Mr. Sharma argued that the Trial Court, on the other hand, had 
considered the absence of discernible evidence to prove that the 
Appellant and another accused were holding knives and had caused 
stab injuries. In the same vein, he contended that the testimonies 
of the injured witnesses and medical experts, combined with 
the inconsistencies in the Complainant’s account, have unfolded 
significant gaps in the investigation conducted.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1151
Raju and Another v. State of Uttarakhand
5.	
Per contra, Mr. Advitiya Awasthi, learned State Counsel urged that 
the Appellant, along with the other accused, Bhola, voluntarily inflicted 
injuries upon Mathu and Imran with a knife, with the intention to cause 
death. He asserted that the injured witness Mathu, in his testimony, 
stated that at the time of the incident, both, the Appellant and Bhola 
were armed with knives. This testimony, he argued, aligned with the 
opinion of the medical expert, who had opined that Mathu’s injuries 
had been caused by some sharp object.
6.	
The singular question that requires our deliberation is whether the 
material on record unmistakably justifies the conviction of the Appellant 
under Section 307 of the IPC?
Analysis
7.	
To begin with, it would be apposite to recount the settled proposition 
of law that a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC may be justified 
only if the accused in question possessed intent coupled with some 
overt act in aid of its execution.1 Ascertaining the intention to kill or 
having the knowledge that death may be caused as a result of the 
overt act, is a question of fact and hinges on the unique circumstances 
that each case may present. Though these fundamentals have been 
established in a plethora of decisions across several decades, we 
have briefly mentioned the same to ensure a lucid understanding 
of the rationale behind the instant decision.
8.	
Keeping these principles in mind,
the intention of the Appellant in this 
context may perhaps be ascertained through the material on record, 
consisting the testimonies of the witnesses; medical opinion and the 
very first version of events contained in the FIR itself. 
9.	
Having analysed the evidence on record, we find that there are 
several gaps in the prosecution story. We say so for the reasons 
that, firstly, the testimonies of PW2 and PW3, Mathu and Imran, are 
inherently contradictory to the narrative of the prosecution, insofar 
as the sequence of events and the roles attributed to the accused 
persons are concerned. Mathu for instance, admitted during his cross 
examination that he could not identify as to who among the accused 
persons inflicted stab wounds and who used lathis. 
1	
State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil (1983) 2 SCC 28; Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 
AIR 2004 SC 2678.
1152
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
10.	 Secondly, the other injured witness, namely Imran, had initially testified 
that all the four accused persons were found standing near Gopal’s 
house, with the Appellant and Bhola carrying knives and Manoj and 
Suresh holding lathis. However, upon being cross-examined, he 
changed his position, claiming that Bhola and the Appellant lashed 
them with lathis while the other two accused arrived at the place of 
incidence from the direction of their house. Given the incertitude in 
regards to the roles attributed to the accused persons, the conviction 
of the Appellant or his co-accused by the High Court becomes all 
the more questionable. 
11.	 Thirdly, there seems to be consequential disparity in the oral evidence 
adduced by witnesses; the medical reports and the opinions, in terms 
of the nature of injuries suffered by Mathu and Imran. Specifically, 
it is undisputed that the injuries suffered by the victims were not 
caused by lathis or a blunt weapon. Similarly, the evidence regarding 
the placement and extent of knife injuries sustained by Mathu and 
Imran does not inspire confidence. Hence, the questions surrounding 
the use of lathis or knives have undermined the prosecution case, 
just as they have cast doubt on the extent and nature of injuries 
sustained by the injured witnesses.
12.	 Fourthly, and most importantly, what makes the circumstances 
entirely murky is the fact that the FIR itself was lodged by a
hearsay 
witness, namely, PW1 Farzan, who is Imran’s father. Notably, Farzan 
was not present at the scene and only learned about the incident 
through alleged eye-witnesses Jakir and Irfan, both of whom had 
accompanied Imran and Mathu when the latter were allegedly 
attacked by the Appellant and other accused persons. Ironically, 
there is not even a whisper about the alleged eye-witnesses, Jakir 
and Irfan joining the investigation. These persons were apparently 
ghost witnesses who neither had their statements recorded by the 
Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the CrPC nor were they 
produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court. Similarly, no 
attempt was made to record their version under Section 164, CrPC. 
The discrepancies elucidated above could have been clarified with 
ease had these eye-witnesses been produced or their statements 
recorded, shedding light on the sequence of events as they unfolded. 
The deafening absence of these two alleged eye-witnesses, in our 
considered opinion, has considerably weakened the prosecution 
case.
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 
1153
Raju and Another v. State of Uttarakhand
13.	 Usually in matters involving criminality, discrepancies are bound to 
be there in the account given by a witness, especially when there 
is conspicuous disparity between the date of the incident and the 
time of deposition. However, if the discrepancies are such that they 
create serious doubt on the veracity of a witness, then the Court may 
deduce and decline to rely on such evidence. This is especially true 
when there are variations in the evidence tendered by prosecution 
witnesses regarding the sequence of events as they have occurred. 
Courts must exercise all the more care and conscientiousness when 
such oral evidence may lean towards falsely implicating innocent 
persons.2
14.	 Undoubtedly, there are glaring interludes which severely enfeeble 
the case that the prosecution sought to present. The prosecution 
story has been demolished by the oral testimonies of the witnesses, 
including the medical experts, coupled with the contents of the FIR 
registered by a hearsay witness. It goes without saying that the chain 
of evidence proffered by the prosecution has to be as complete as 
is humanly possible and it does not leave any reasonable ground for 
a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must 
instead, indicate that the act had indeed been singularly committed 
by the accused only.3
15.	 To further fan the flames, there is no motive attributed to the Appellant 
or his
co-accused Bhola, in order to justify their conviction under 
Section 307 of the IPC. Both the injured witnesses, Imran and Mathu, 
during their cross-examination, clearly explicated that there was no 
enmity or ill will between them and the accused persons. It is not 
even the prosecution’s case that this was a chance occurrence. It 
seems that the accused and the alleged victims were familiar with 
each other and had some kind of association. There is thus more 
to this than meets the eye, and we are not entirely convinced of the 
narrative presented and perceived by the prosecution.
16.	 In our considered view, the High Court ought to have given due 
weightage to the glaring inconsistencies, before reversing a well-
reasoned order of acquittal. It is a well-established canon of law 
2	
Andhra Pradesh v. Pullagummi Kasi Reddy Krishna Reddy (2018) 7 SCC 623.
3	
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1952] 1 SCR 1091; Ram Gopal v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 
1972 SC 656; Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 AIR 1622.
1154
[2024] 7 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
that when the Trial Court has acquitted the accused based on a 
plausible understanding of the evidence, and such finding is not 
marred by perversity or due to overlooking or misreading of the 
evidence presented by the prosecution, the High Court ought not 
to overturn such an order of acquittal.4 We are inclined to hold that 
the Trial Court, after reviewing the entire evidence on record, was 
correct in concluding that the totality of circumstances casts doubt 
on the alleged incident and suggests that the prosecution witnesses 
may have concealed the actual story.
Conclusion and Directions
17.	 We, thus, find it quite unsafe to convict the Appellant on the basis of 
such laconic evidence. Rather, we deem it appropriate to allow this 
appeal and acquit the Appellant in FIR Case Crime No. 84/1994. 
Accordingly, the order of conviction by the High Court dated 
10.12.2009 is set aside, and that of the Trial Court dated 13.10.1995 
is restored in so far as the Appellant is concerned. The bail bonds, 
if any, furnished by the Appellant are hereby cancelled.
18.	 The present appeal is allowed in the above terms.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
4	
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 2 SCC 333; Ballu@Balram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 
Crl. Appeal No. 1167.2018.