The Rajasthan High Court recently ruled that firing a firearm at an unoccupied shop, when the individual allegedly targeted for assault is absent, does not constitute an attempt to murder.
The bench headed by Justice Birendra Kumar noted that in the present case, the prosecution had conceded that the firearm was discharged at an empty shop. Consequently, the Court ruled that the offense under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not established.
“Section 307 IPC is not made out in the facts and circumstances of this case because it is the prosecution case that firing was made at the shop and hit the glasses and the person who was intended to be assaulted with firearm injury was not there. Firing was not made pointing to any other person including the informant. Therefore, offence under Section 307/149 IPC is also not made out against the appellant (accused),” the Court said.
The Court made this observation while hearing a plea challenging the criminal charges framed by a trial court against the appellant in a 2022 case. The charges included attempt to murder, extortion, and being part of an unlawful assembly under the IPC, in addition to charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The case stemmed from a December 2022 incident where three unidentified individuals allegedly demanded ransom from a businessman, Indra Kumar Hisaria. Hisaria's employee stated that after receiving the ransom calls, three men drove by the businessman’s shop and fired shots at it, intending to kill Hisaria, who was absent at the time. Although the shots only damaged the shop’s glass entrance, it was claimed that the assailants intended harm.
The appellant contended that there was no substantial evidence to support the charge of an attempt to murder. Furthermore, he argued that since Hisaria, the alleged target, did not belong to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the SC/ST Act was inapplicable.
The Court found merit in these arguments. It highlighted that both the SC/ST Act and Section 307 of the IPC require specific conditions to be met, and there was no evidence indicating that any assault was aimed at a member of the SC/ST community. As a result, the Court quashed the charges under the SC/ST Act. However, it permitted the continuation of the trial for the remaining charges under Section 386 of the IPC (extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt) read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) of the IPC.
Advocate Nishant Motsara represented the appellant, while Public Prosecutor Nishant Motsara appeared for the State.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy