Partly allowed

Sheoram Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P.

Supreme Court23 Aug 19721972 INSC 183 · [1973] 1 S.C.R. 9391972 INSC 183

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against convictions in a group shooting where one accused killed Har Narain Singh after he refused to turn out a prosecution witness. The Court held that since the other five co-accused were acquitted of the offence under sections 302/149 because the killing was not the assembly's common object, the same reasons acquitted appellant Sheoram Singh. No cogent evidence supported common intentio

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence of Sheoram Singh for the offence under section 302 read with section 149 IPC set aside; his remaining convictions upheld; Jumman's unpressed appeal dismissed.

Sheoram Singh & Anr. versus State of U.P. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Supreme Court (1973)

SHEORAM SINGH & ANR.

STATE OF U.P. August 23, 1972

¶5

[J. M. SHELAT, /.D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J

¶6

B Jmlinn Penal Code ( 45 of 1860) ,s. 34-CircurnstanceJ for invocatiorr

¶7

of.

¶8

Seven accused attad,ked one of the prosecution witnesses who took refuge inside a house. The deceased and th~ prosecution 'Witness went to the roof of the hoUSe when one of the accused, who was th~ father of the appellant, asked the deceased to tum out the prosecution witness as otherwise i: would be bad for him also. On his refusal to do so that accused shot at the deceased with a RUn and the dectased died. The c aPl)ellant. thereafter, fired at the proscution witness and caused him an injury. All the accused were charged wi,th offences under s.302, s.302 read with s.149, s.307 read with s.149, s.307, s..l48 and s.147, I.P.C. Tbe trial court acquitted them. On appeal the High Court .• held that the death of the deceased took place as a result of the firing by the father of the appellant and convicted him under s.302. l.P.C. Tite appellant. ·\vbo injured the prosecution wjtness by firing a shot at him, was conD victed under s.307. I.P.C. The appellant was also convicted under 1!1.302 read with s. 149 in connection with the death of the deceased and l.so under s.l48 for the offence of rioting with a deadly weapon. As regards tbe other accused, the Hih Court held that their common ohiect was t.o till the prosecution witness and not the deceased. Therefore, the High Court com;cted them of the offence under s.307 r~ad with s. 149' f.P.C., and acquitted them of the offence under s.302 read with s. 149.

¶9

E In appeal to this Court.,

¶10

HELD : ( 1) The reasons for acquitting the other five accused for the offence under s.302 read with s.149. I.P.C. hold equally good in relation to the aQ.oellant also, and hence his conviction for that offem:.' ouJd not be sustained. [943EF]

¶11

(2) A common intention can develop during the cours0 of an occurTencc but there has to be cogent material on the basis of which F she Court can arrive.. at such a finding and hold one accused vit·ariouslv liable for the act of another accused by invoking s.34, l.P.C. [944C-Dl

¶12

ln the present case, there is nothing to show that there wa~ a11' xhortation or encouragement by the appc11ant to his father to fire at the deceased. The words attributed to the father indicate that he W?. not willing to. spai·e the deceased if the latter did not turn out the prosecution witness from his house, but it could not be inferred from that G that the appellant. shared the intention of his father or that the abot was fired bv the rather at th~ deceased in furtherance of their common intention,. Jt ?oes not fo11ow from th,e shot fired bv the appellant at thr prosccu11on. Wltness that the shot fired at the deceased by his father wa~ also fired in furtherance of the intention of the appellant [9430-H· 944ACl . '

¶13

Hence the appellar.t could not be found guilty under s.302 read with H ~. 34 J.P.C.. also. [9440] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal ~,), 215 of 1969.

¶14

940,

¶15

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶16

[1973] 1 S.C.R.

¶17

~ppeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated ~pnl 15, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)' m Cr. A. No. 957 of 1965.

¶18

¶19

J. P. Goyal and S. M. Jain, for the appellants.

¶20

D. P. Uniyal, V. MayakrishTUJn and 0. P. Rana, for the rt!&pondent.

¶21

¶22

The Judgment of the Court was Jelivered by Ka, J. Arjun Singh (7), his son ·sheoram Singh alias .Bhu S1n,dl (27), Jaatpal Singh (29), Ganga Deen (29). am .Nath (39), Sheo Prad (30) 3:Dd. Jumrnan (30) were tned m the court of Addttlonal Sess1ons Judge Unnao for offences under section 302, section. 302 read with section 149. secti.on 307. section 307 read with section 149, section 148 and section 147 Indian Penal Code and were ·acquitted. On appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the P llahabad Hih Court convicted Arjun Singh under section 302, 8cction 307 read witl& !l;ection 149, and ection 148 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life on the first count, rigoCOUil imprisonment fot a period of .five years on the second count and riorous imprisonment for a period of two years on the tf:tird count: Sheoram Singh was convicted. under section 302 read with· section 149, section 307 and section 148 Indian PenaJ · Code. and was .. sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life oa tho first count, riorous imprisonment for a period of five year• oo the second count and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two vears on the third count. The remaining accused were convicted under section 307 read with section 149, and section 147 ·Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to undergo ·rirous imorisonmen't for a period of five years on the first oount and riorous imprisonment for a period of one year on dle second count. The sentences in the case of each of the accused were ordered to run concurrently.. Arjun Singh, Sheo· .ram Singh and Jumman thereafter applied to this Court under .utic1e 136 of the Constirtution for special leave to appea1 against the fudent of the High Court. This Court declined to grant: leave to Ariun Sin and dismissed the application in so far u it related to him. Sheoram Sinm and Jumman were granted leave "limited to the section under which they can be convicitod including, the applicability qf section 34 and 1.49 Indian Penal

Code".

The prosecution case is. that Ar.iun Singh, J wnn1an, Ganga 0een and Sheo Prasad accused were inimical · towards RaUl Dul~ Sindt· as be was takinr interest in a magisterial e11 qtdry relatin2 to tbe death in oolice cust?<fy of one J~ ~~ had been severely beaten t4y ·the aforesaid accused 1n Siroa1

¶30

¶31

SHEORAM SINGH V. u. P. STATE (Khanna, J.)

¶32

941

¶33

A before his arrest by the police. On November 4, 1964 at about 4.30 p.m., it is stated, Ram Dularey Singh (PW 4) was sitting in front of his house in village Chilaula. Rampal Singh (PWl) ~nd his cousin. Chandrapal Singh were sitting iJl the courtyard 1n front of therr house benearth a tree. The h6uses of Rampal Singh and Ram Dularey Singh are ·close to each other. The

¶34

B seven accused then came there. Out of them, ArJun Singh and Sheoram Singh were with guns, while the remaining accused carried lathis. Arjun Singh then shouted to his companions to kill Ram Dularey Sin~h. Ram DuJarey Singh raised alam1 and rvahed towards the house of Rarnpal Singh a11d closed the door from inside, Rampal Singh and Chandrapal Singh · tried to

¶35

c pacify the accused and asked them not to quarrel on that day as it was ,a day· of Paraiva which' foJlows Deepawali. The accused then stood at a short distance from the house of Ram Duiarey Sin~}}. Har Narain Singh, deceased, who was brother of. Chandrapal Singh, was inside ~he bouse at that time. Har Narain Singh along with Ram DuJarey Singh then went to ·the

¶36

D eastern roof of the house. Bar Narain Singh too asked lthe accused to abstain from abusing Ram Dularey Singh, Arjun Singh then asked Har Narain Singh 10 tun1 otit Ram Dulru;ey Singh from his. house. When Har N arain Singh declined, Ar.iun Singh shouted that it would be bad for him . also. On tb.e instigation of the other accused, Ar.iun Singh then fired his gun at Har N arain Singh. Sheoram Singh immediately th·~reafter

¶37

E fired at Ram Dularey Singh. Both Har Narain Singh and Ram Dularey Singh fell down on¹ thc roof on receipt of gun shot injurie-s. The accused then ran away. The occurrence, it is stated, was witnessed by Rampal Singh ( PW 1 ) Raghunandan Pandey (PW 2), Gajodhar Singh (PW 6) and Suraj Bali tPW 8~. Rampal Singh after getting ,the door of his house

¶38

F opened went to the roof. Har Narain Singh was found to be lying dead there~ while Ram Dularey Singh was groaning with pain. Rampal Singh then went to police station· Kotwali at a distance of six miJs from the place of occurrence and· lodged report at 840 p.m. Sub Inspector Sri Ram Bau Chauhan then came to the p1ace of occurre~ce and took over the investigation of the case.-

¶39

G ·The Sub Inspector prepared tbe .inquest report relating to the dead body of Har Narain Singh and took into possession various articles. Ram Dularey Singh was got examined from Dr. S. N. Tandon at 12-15 a.m. on November 5, 1964. He was found to have gun shot wounds on the front of the chest, abdomen, right elbow, right foreann and. the riht nalm. .Post mortem examination on the dead body of Har Narain Sin was performed

¶40

H l:1y l)r. B~ N. De at 3.30 pm. on November 5, 1964. Gun shot wounds ~ found in the chest cavity, left shoulder, lower left arm and riht arm on ·the body of Har Narain Singh. A number

942

SUPREl COURT REPORTS

_.:_

.of ribs, were found rto have been fractured under the gun shot "YVounds in the chest cavity. Death of Har Narain Singh, in th~ .opinion of the doctor, was due to shock fu!emorrhage. _

¶46

At the trial the accused denied the·. prosecution allegation. ·The plea. of Ariun Singh and Sheoram Singh was · that on .November 4,. 1964 Arjun Singh went at 2.00 or 2.45. p.in. to B railway station Nagarwara to see off his son Sheorrun Singh accused, who had to go to Ferozepur on duty. Sheoram Singh is emp1oyed in the army. Sheoram Singh's train .left the railway station at 4.10 p.m. and Arjun Singh returned to 1iii house at about sunset. Accordin~ further to Arjun Singh, he was asked by the police to come to the' police station· along with his gu~ and cartridges. · He was thereafter put under arrest. The plea^c of the remaining accused was denial simpliciter. .

¶47

¶48

The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused because :he was of the view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was of a partisan character. It was also held that the investi~ ation of the case was tainted. On appeal the High Court considered the evidence of Rampal Singh (P\V 1), Ram .Dula.rey · Singh (P\V 4) and Gajodbar Singh (PW 6) to be fre. fron1 blemish. The ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution was accepted. The High Court, however, found the evidence regard· ing. the exhortation by. the other accused to Arjun Singh. to kill Har Narain Sin~ and Ram Dularey Singh to be not very convincirte.. It was held- by the High Court that the death of Har N arain Singh · took place as a result of firing by Arjun Sin_gh. Arjun Singh was convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code~ He was also found to be guilty of the offences under section 307 read with section 149 and section 148 Indian Penal Code. Sheoram Singh, who was alleged to have.· injured Ram Dularey Singh. PW by firing a shot at him, was convicted on that aecount under section 307 Indian~ Penal Code. Sheoram Singh' was further convicd under section 302 read with section 149 Indian· Penal Code in connection with the death of Har Narain Singh and also under section 148 lndWn. Penal Code for the offence rioting With deadly weapon. · Rega.ring the other accused, the High Court was of the view that they were 1n1ilty under section 14 7 Indian Penal Code for the offence of riotin_g while being members of ·:ln unlawful assembly. Their common object, in the opinion of the High Court, was to kill Ram Dularey Singh. As such. they were also found to be guilty of the offence under section 307 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code. It. was not the object ' {)f the unla-wful assembly.. in the opinion, of the High Court. to cause the death of Har N arain Singh. The case under. section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code against tiv~se .:~ccuscd was l1eld to have not been proved.

1...-

,....

SHEORAM SINGH ~- U. P. STATE (Khall11-G 1 J.)

¶57

943

¶58

A Mr. Goyal on behalf of the appellants has not challenged before us ~he conviction of J urn man appellant for the offences under section 307 read with section 149 and section 14'7 Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has further not challenged the conviction of Sheoram Singh appellant for offences under ctions 307 and 148 Indian Penal Code. The only contention which has B been advanced hy Mr. Goyal before us is that the conviction of Sheoram Singh appellant for the offence under section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code is not well foundt.!d. There is, in our opinion, considerable force in this contention. It would appear from the resume of facts given above that the common obiect of the unlawful assembly, of which Sheoram Singh and c other accused weJ;e members, was to cause the death of Ram Dularey Singh. None of them had any enmity with Har Narain Singh or any motive to kill him. Har Narain Singh, no doubt was killed as a result of the shot fired by Ar.iun Sinr,h, but there is nothing on the record to show that Arjun Singh fired the shot at Har Narain Singh in proseeution of the common object of , the unlawful assembly. The High Court has acquitted the D accused, other than Arjun Singh and Sheoram Singh, for the offenre under section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code on the ground that the murder of Har Narain Singh was not !f.be initial object of the unlawful assembly and the firing at him was the result of develOpments which could not have been anticipated. If the other five accused were acquitted and not E found guilty of the offenre under section 302 read with section 1 49 Indian Penal Code in connection with the death of Har N arain Sin, it is not clear as to how the conviction of Shooram Singh for the said offence could be sustained. The reasons which led to the acquittal of the other five accused for the offence under section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code held F equally good for the acquittal for that offence of Sheoram SiTigh.

¶59

Mr. Uniyal on behalf of the State has argued that even if the conviction of Sheoram Singh for the offence under section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained, he is guilty of the offence under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Penal Code because the circumstances of the case G show that Ariun Singh fired the shot at Har N arain Singh in furtherance of the common intention of Arjun Singh and Sheoram Singh. This submission, in our opinion, is not well founded. There is nothing to show that there was any exhortation by Shooram Singh to Ar1un Singh to fire at Har Narain ingb. Indeed, the -High Court has not accepted the evidence of exu hortation to Ariun Singh by any of the other accused before Arjun Singh ·fired at Har Narain Sgh .. Th~ prosecution h,as, no doubt, led evidence to show that Arjun Smgh before firing the shot at Har N arain. Singh told him that if he did not !urn

[1973] 1 S.C.R.

944

Sl)PREME, COURT REPORTS

¶64

out Ram Dularey Singh frQm his house, it would be bad for him (IJ.ar Narain Singh) also. These words, undoubtedly, indicate· the attitude of Ar.iun Singh and show that he was not willing to spare Har Narain Singh if the Jatter was not prepared to turn out from his bouse Ram Dularey Singh. It is, however, difficult to infer from that exclamation of A rju n Singh that Sheoram shared the intention of Arjun Singh and that the shot was fired by Arjun Singh at Har Narain Singh in furtherance of the common intention of "Arjun Singh and Shooram Singh. There is, indeed. nothing on the re<:on:l to jnd.icate tlmt She9ra1n Singh in any way encoutagcd his father Ar,iun Singh to kill Hnr NL\rain Sinb. Sheoram Singh, no doubt, fired a shot at Ram Dularey Singh and (for tlaat he has been convicted under section 3d7 Indian Penal Code, but it does not follow from that tha't the shot at Har Narain Singh by Ar.iun Singn was. also fired in filrtherance of tbe inteo.tlon of Shcoram Sin. It is undeniable that common intention can develop during the course of an occurrence, but there has to be cogent material on the basis of which the court can arrive at that .findin~ and hold an accused vicariously liable for the act o{ the other accused hv involving· section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

·As a result of the.· above, we ac.;cpt the appeal of Sheoram Sin$ to the extent of setting aside h1s conviction and sentence for !the offence under section 302 rcaJ with section 149 Indian Penal. Code. In other respects the nppcnl of Sheoram Singh· is dismissed. The appeal regarding Jumman has not bP~n pressed and is dismissed.

¶70

V.P.S.

¶71

Appeal dismissed

Sheoram Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheoram Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayodhya Singh versus State of Rajasthan

Suna Ullah Butt versus State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.

Jugal Kishore Prasad versus State of Bihar

Pala Singh & Anr. versus State of Punjab

Jai Narain versus Municipal Corporation of Delhi

State of Bihar versus Deokaran Nenshi