Delhi Court Convicts Man For Attempt To Murder, Rejects ‘Ricochet Bullet’ Defence

Saket Court has convicted a man for the offence of attempt to murder wherein the accused fired a country-made pistol at the accused' abdomen. Court rejected the defence that the bullet had first struck the ground and then ricocheted into the victim.

Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi, in a judgment pronounced on September 14, 2026, held that the prosecution had established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of the injured witness, medical evidence and forensic ballistic evidence.

The accused was convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempt to murder and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for use of an unlawful firearm.

According to the prosecution, the incident occurred on October 8, 2013, at Mandi Village in New Delhi following a dispute between the accused and persons known to him. The prosecution alleged that during the confrontation, the accused went to his residence, retrieved an unlicensed country-made firearm and returned to the spot. He allegedly aimed the firearm at the victim's abdomen and fired. The injured person was thereafter taken to a hospital, where doctors found a serious gunshot injury requiring emergency medical intervention.

The prosecution examined 18 witnesses during the trial, including the complainant, the injured witness, another eyewitness, police officials, doctors and a forensic ballistic expert.

A central argument advanced by the defence was that the accused had not deliberately fired at the victim. The defence claimed that the bullet had first struck the cemented floor and then bounced or ricocheted before hitting the victim. It was argued that this created reasonable doubt about the prosecution's allegation of a direct shot.

The defence also questioned the reliability of witnesses, pointed to inconsistencies in their statements and highlighted the absence of certain independent corroborative evidence. It further relied on the fact that the cross-examination of one of the principal prosecution witnesses took place several years after his examination-in-chief.

The defence also questioned the firing-distance evidence and the evidentiary value of certain medical and forensic material.

Court rejected thetheory after examining the medical and ballistic evidence. The judgment noted that the bullet had entered the victim's abdomen approximately three centimetres below the umbilicus, causing extensive internal injuries. It had lacerated the small intestine, severed major abdominal blood vessels and travelled through the posterior abdominal wall before becoming lodged deep inside the body near the lumbar spine.

Judge Jaggi found that the nature and depth of the bullet's trajectory were inconsistent with the theory that it had merely ricocheted from a cemented surface before striking the victim. Court also observed that a bullet striking the ground would lose substantial kinetic energy and that the injuries and depth of penetration recorded in the present case were inconsistent with such a theory.

The Court also attached considerable significance to the testimony of the injured witness. The witness had specifically stated that the accused retrieved the firearm and fired at his abdomen. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the firing was accidental or that the bullet had first struck the ground.

The Court noted that the testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries significant evidentiary value because such a witness was present at the scene and had himself sustained the injury in the incident. The Court found that the injured witness's account was supported by the medical evidence as well as the forensic evidence.

While considering the charge of attempt to murder, the Court reiterated that the prosecution need not establish that the victim actually died or suffered an injury sufficient to cause death. What is required is proof of the requisite intention or knowledge and an act committed towards the commission of murder.

In the present case, the Court found that the accused allegedly retrieved a firearm, returned to the spot and fired at the victim's abdomen. The nature of the weapon, the manner in which it was used and the seriousness of the resulting injury were sufficient, in the Court's assessment, to establish the requisite intention for Section 307 IPC.

It further noted that the present case was not based merely on circumstantial evidence or an isolated police recovery. Instead, the prosecution had produced direct testimony from the injured witness, medical evidence and ballistic evidence linking the recovered firearm with the cartridge found at the scene.

Holding the accused guilty under Section 307 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, Court directed that the accused be taken into judicial custody and cancelled the bail and surety bonds. The matter has subsequently been fixed for hearing on the quantum of sentence.

Case Title: Santosh Kumar vs Pradeep Singh