MAINA SINGH V. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
[1976 SC]
CASE NUMBER
Criminal
Appeal No. 242 of 1971
CITATION
1976 SCC (2) 827
JUDGES
Hon’ble Justice P.N. Singhal
Hon’ble Justice R.S. Sarkaria
DATE OF JUDGEMENT
March
17, 1976
RELEVANT PROVISIONS
Section 34, 149, 302 and 326 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860
FACTS
· This appeal of Maina Singh arises out of the judgment
of the Rajasthan High Court dated April 21, 1971 upholding the Trial Court’s
judgment convicting him of an offence u/s 302 read with section 34 of IPC, 1860
for causing the death of Amar Singh and of an offence u/s 326 IPC for causing
grievous injuries to Amar Singh’s son Ajeet Singh.
· The appellant Maina Singh and his three sons Hardeep
Singh, Jeet Singh and Puran Singh were used to live in Chak No. 77 GB in
Gandhinagar District of Rajasthan.
· It was alleged that the relation between Maina Singh
and Amar Singh was strained as Maina Singh suspected that Amar Singh was giving
information about his smuggling activities.
· Amar Singh had done some construction work in his
house and had engaged Isar Ram as a Mason.
· On 29th of June 1967 at about sunset, with
the intention of taking revenge from Amar Singh, Maina Singh, his three sons
namely Hardeep Singh, Jeet Singh and Puran Singh along with Narain Singh came
at the time when the deceased with his son Ajeet Singh and Isar Ram went for a
bath to their diggi in Murabba 35.
· Maina Singh armed with a 12- bore gun, Puran Singh got
Takua and the rest of three with gandasis with them. There Maina Singh fired a
shot at the deceased but the shot hit at the legs of the deceased’s son.
· The accused fired another gunshot, which was also a
mis-hit. Therefore Amar Singh ran towards the sugarcane field crying for help,
but was chased by the accused.
· The son of the deceased Ajeet Kumar thereupon ran and
lodged a report at the Police Station of Anoopgarh at 10 p.m.
· The five accused however followed the deceased and
Maina Singh fired at him and then other co- accused reached near the Amar Singh
and gave him the blows with the weapons they brought and Maina Singh also gave
two blows.
· The deceased died there with the injuries and all
accused flew away from there.
QUESTIONS OF LAW
§ Whether the court rightly charged Maina Singh for the offence
u/s 149/ 302 and 326 of IPC?
§ Whether all the co-accused were rightly acquitted by
the Trial Court?
RATIONALE OF THE CASE
v There is no doubt that the Maina Singh and other
persons are the only responsible ones for causing the injuries to the deceased.
v The court observed that it cannot be possible to find
that which accused was present there with the Maina Singh and prosecution’s
version of statement cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt for proving the
guilt of the other accused. Thus, the court held that they are not liable to be
punished along with Maina Singh.
v The court quoted the decision in the case Ram Bilas Singh vs. State of Bihar which
clarifies that where the prosecution case was set out in the charge as
supported by the evidence to the effect that the alleged unlawful assembly
comprises five or more, and there is no question of any participation by the
other persons or not identifiable, then court would not holdthat there was an
unlawful assembly.
v However, if the prosecution case adduced evidence that
number over five persons took part in the incident and some of them could not
be identifiable then it would be open to the court to convict less than the
five, offence of being the members of unlawful assembly.
JUDGMENT
§ The Sessions Court in its judgment held that the
accused Maina Singh who fired the gun was held liable for committing murder u/s
302 read with section 34 of IPC for causing death of Amar Singh and also
charged with an offence u/s 326 of IPC for causing grievous hurt to Ajeet Singh
.
§ The Trial Court also found that in the absence of evidence
that the accused acted conjointly with some other persons named or unnamed,
there would be no conviction of the other co-accused u/s 302 and they were
given benefit of doubt and all co-accused were acquitted.
§ The accused Maina Singh filed an appeal before the
High Court for the acquittal of the remaining accused. The High Court dismissed
the appeal and the matter went to the Supreme Court.
§ The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that if the other
co-accused were acquitted because they did not act conjointly with the accused
in committing the murder. If that was the case, then the accused could not be convicted
for having committed the offence conjointly with the acquitted persons.
§ The Apex Court also stated that evidence on record
does not show that Maina Singh was responsible for any such injury which caused
the death of the deceased. However, the gunshot was one of those injuries which
were grievous therefore the accused was guilty for the grievous hurt to the
deceased through an instrument for shooting and held liable for section 326 of
IPC.
§ Thus, the appeal was allowed and Maina Singh’s
conviction u/s 302/34 IPC is altered to one u/s 326 of IPC.
CONCLUSION
Therefore,
the law of subject on perusal of above case may be stated as:
Where
more than one person are charged to have committed an offence conjointly in
furtherance of common intention of all of them and some of them are acquitted
but more than one are convicted, the conviction will be justified provided that
the convicted share the common intention.
But
if only one is convicted and all others are acquitted, the conviction will be
wrong unless he is proved by evidence to have committed the offence conjointly
with some other persons whether named/unnamed by prosecution.
PRECEDENTS
Mohan Singh v/s. State of Punjab [1963 SC]
Krishna Patil v/s. State of Maharashtra [1963 SC]
Ram Bilas Singh v/s. State of Bihar [1963]
Written by:
AkankshaVerma
B.A.LL.B (Hons)
3rd Year
University of Allahabad
0 Comments