'Victim Survived Fatal Attack Only By Sheer Luck': Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash 'Attempt To Murder' Case Based On Compromise

The Allahabad High Court recently refused to quash an attempt to murder case (Section 307 IPC) based on the compromise entered into between the victim and the accused as it observed that permitting the parties to compromise would be an abdication of the State's function to prosecute offences against the society.

Considering the medico-legal report and the fact that the gunshot injury was sustained on the neck, which is a vital part of the body, the bench of Justice JJ Munir observed thus:

"A reading of the FIR and the medico-legal report does not spare a shadow of doubt that the applicant shot the complainant-opposite party with a countrymade pistol and the complainant received a gunshot wound to his neck. It is only by sheer luck that he survived the fatal attack...Now, here the evidence shows that the weapon used was a fire-arm and it brooks little doubt that a person who opens FIR at another does so with the intention to kill. He certainly does not do so with the intention to love or play a jest."

Essentially, the Court was dealing with a Section 482 CrPC plea filed by the accused (one Mujeem) seeking to quash the entire proceedings of Session Trial under Section 307 IPC pending in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Chitrakoot.

It was his submission that the matter had been compromised between the parties and an application to this effect has already been filed before the trial court. It was also contended that there are no chances of conviction since the matter has been compromised and hence, the complainant would not testify in support of the prosecution, in case a trial is held.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Bench, at the outset, took note of the facts of the case that the accused bore a grudge against the applicant and in December 2010, when he to his home with his uncle, the accused, who was waiting by the side of the canal, upon seeing the complainant, chased him and shortly thereafter, opened fire at him.

The Court noted in the medico-legal report, it was clearly mentioned that there was blackening in the neck area of 12cm x 12cm and the supplementary medical report showed evidence of a radio-opaque shadow of metallic density seen in the temporomandibular joint which meant that the pellets from the fire-arm were lodged in the temporomandibular joint.

Further, regarding the application to quash such a case based on compromise, the Court referred to Apex Court’s ruling in the case of Narinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein it was observed thus:

“…while taking a call as to whether compromise in such cases should be effected or not, the High Court should go by the nature of injury sustained, the portion of the bodies where the injuries were inflicted (namely, whether injuries are caused at the vital/delicate parts of the body) and the nature of weapons used, etc. On that basis, if it is found that there is a strong possibility of proving the charge under Section 307 IPC, once the evidence to that effect is led and injuries proved, the Court should not accept settlement between the parties.”

In view of this, the Court said that to its understanding, the principle laid down in the Narinder Singh case does not approve of such a composition and quashing on its basis.

Consequently, the application was rejected.

Also read: Vital Body Parts Not Receiving Injuries Doesn't Mean Offence Isn't Heinous: Allahabad HC Refuses To Quash Attempt To Murder Case Based On Compromise

Case title - Mujeem vs. State Of U.P. And Another 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 163 [APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17220 of 2023]

Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 163

Click Here To Read/Download Order