Shooting firearm at empty shop is not attempt to murder: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court recently held that shooting a firearm at an empty shop, in the absence of the person who was allegedly intended to be assaulted, would not amount to an attempt to murder [Jakir Khan v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.].

Justice Birendra Kumar observed that in the case at hand, the prosecution itself admitted that the firing was made at an empty shop.

Therefore, the offence under Section 307 (attempt to murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) was not made out, the Court held.

“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 criminal charges framed by a trial court against the appellant in a 2022 case.

The charges framed by the trial court included attempt to murder, extortion and being part of an unlawful assembly under the IPC, apart from charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (SC/ST Act).

The case concerned an incident from December 2022, when three unknown individuals allegedly demanded ransom from a businessman named Indra Kumar Hisaria.

Hisaria's employee claimed that after these calls were received, three men drove by the businessman's shop and fired shots at it with the intent to murder Hisaria, although he was not present in the shop at the time.

Although the shots hit only the glass of the shop entrance, it was alleged that the assailants intended to harm him.

The appellant argued that there was no substantive material indicating any such murder attempt. He added 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 emphasized that both the SC/ST Act and Section 307 IPC require specific criteria to be met. The Court found no evidence of any assault directed at any SC/ST community member.

Consequently, the Court quashed the charges under the SC/ST Act as well. However, it said that the trial may continue for the remaining charges under Section 386 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.

[Read order]