Sheoram Singh & Anr. VS. State Of U.P.

Summary

---

Seven accused attacked one of the prosecution witnesses who took-refuge inside a house. The deceased and the prosec`ution witness went to the roof of the house when one of the accused, who was the father of the appellant, asked the deceased to turn out the Prosecution witness as otherwise it would be bad for him also. On his refusal to do so,that accused shot at the deceased with a Run and the deceased died. The appellant, thereafter, fired at the proscution witness and caused. him an injury. AU the accused were charged with offences under s.302, s.302 read with s.149, s.307 read with s.149, s.307, s.148 and s.147, I.P.C.

The 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, I.P.C. The appellant,who injured the prosecution witness by firing a shot at him, was convicted under s.307, I.P.C. The appellant was also convicted under s.302 read with s. 149 in connection with the death of the deceased and also under s.148 for the, offence of rioting with a deadly weapon. As regards the other accused, the High Court held that their common object was to kill the Prosecution witness and not the deceased. 'Therefore, the High Court convicted them of the offence under s.307 read with s.149 I.P.C. and acquitted them of the offence under s.302 read with s.149.

In appeal to this Court,

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 appellant also, and hence his conviction for that offence could not be sustained.

[943E-F]

(2) A 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 such a finding and hold one accused vicariously liable for the act of another accused by invoking s.34, I.P.C. [944C-D]

In the present case, there is nothing to show that there was any exhortation or encouragement by the appellant to his father to fire at the deceased, The words attributed to the father indicate that he was not willing to spare the deceased if the latter did not turn out the prosucution witness from his house, but it could not be inferred from that that the appellant shared the intention of his father or that the shot was fired by the father at the deceased in furtherance of their common intention. It does not follow from the shot fired by the appellant at the prosecution witness that the shot fired at the deceaed by his father was o fired in furtherance of the intention of the appellant.

[943G-H; 944AC]

Hence the appellant could not be found guilty under s.302 read with s. 34 I.P.C., also. [944D]

See the full content of this document

Extract

---

Sheoram Singh & Anr. VS. State Of U.P.

PETITIONER: SHEORAM SINGH & ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P.

DATE OF JUDGMENT23/08/1972

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ

BENCH: KHANNA, HANS RAJ

SHELAT, J.M.

DUA, I.D.

CITATION: 1972 AIR 2555 1973 SCR (1) 939 1973 SCC (3) 110

ACT: Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860),s. 34-Circumstances for invocation of.

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPFLLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 215 of 1969.

Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 15, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in'Cr. A. No. 957 of 1965.

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

D. P. Uniyal, V. Mayakrishnan and O. P. Rana, for the respondent.

The Judgment of t...

See the full content of this document

---