LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

ANTAR SINGH versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 900 · Decided: 30-11-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ANTAR SINGH 
v. 
STA TE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
NOVEMBER 30, 2006 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARK.AND EV KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302134-Common intention-Deceased 
with her daughter-Surrounded by accused persons equipped with deadly 
C weapons-Inflicted with injuries in quick succession-Held: Jt can be inferred 
that accused hgd common intention to kill deceased 
Prosecution case was. that appellant and three others entered the 
house of deceased; armed with deadly weapons. Deceased and her 
daughter PW-1 were in the house at that time. Eight other persons 
D surrounded the house. Badri assaulted the deceased. Deceased suffered 
as many as eight injuries. Sessions Judge convicted appellant, Badri and 
two others under Section 302 IPC r/w. Section 449 IPC. On appeal, High 
Court upheld the order subject to modification that the appellants were 
held liable to conviction under Section 302/34 I.P.C. instead of Section 302 
l.P.C. Special Leave Petition of Badri was dismissed. The present appeal 
E 
is filed by appellant. 
F 
Appellant contended that having regard to the fact that P.W.1 in her 
deposition attributed overt acts on the part of Badri, the appellant cannot 
be said to have any common intention to kill the deceased. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The question whether in a given situation, the accused 
persons had shared common intention to commit the murder or not, must 
be judged having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. No 
G hard and fast rule can be laid down. The deceased suffered as many as 
eight injuries. The manner in which she was done away with was cruel 
in nature. She was murdered in her own house. For this purpose, twelve 
persons had assembled. Eight pei:sons had surrounded her house. while 
other four persons with deadly weapons entered therein. 1902-G-H] 
H 
900 
ANTAR SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
901 
1.2. In a situation of this nature, the common intention on the part of A 
all accused persons who had entered into the house can be safely inferred. 
The manner in which the occurrence had taken place itself would show that 
the accused had intention to kill the deceased. There was no provocation. 
There was no sudden quarrel. The deceased was an old lady and her daughter 
PW.1 was 15 years old girl. PW.1 could not have resisted the appellant nor B 
could the deceased herself offer any resistance to the murderer. Within a 
short time, eight injuries were inflicted on her person in quick succession. 
All the accused persons committed the said offence by going into her house. 
It was, therefore, not a case where this Court can differ with the opinion of 
the trial Court and that of the High Court that the appellant had no common 
intention to kill the deceased alongwith Badri and other. (903-A-D] 
C 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 904 of 
2000. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 10-8-1999 of the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) in Criminal Appeal No. 78711994. 
D 
Syed Ali Ahmad, Syed Tanweer Ahmad, Girdhar G. Upadhyay, Ms. 
Vinita G. Upadhyay, Awadesh Kumar Singh, S.S. Bandyopadhyay, Ms. Shabana 
Saifi, R.D. Upadhyay and Shivpati B. Pandey for the Appellant. 
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the court was delivered by 
E 
S.B. SINHA. J. Appellant with one Badri has preferred this appeal 
aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence F 
date 10.8.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya 
Pradesh, Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal No. 787/1994 whereby and 
whereunder the judgment of learned Sessions Judge dated 22.11.1994 passed 
in Sessions. Trial No. 385/93 convicting the accused-appellants under Sections 
302 and 449 of the I.P.C. and sentencing them to imprisonment for life for 
the said offence was upheld subject to the modification that the appellants G 
herein were convicted under Section 302/34 I.P.C. Instead of Section 302 
I.P.C. 
The occurrence took place on 6th July, 1993 at about 4 p.rn. The 
deceased was a lady named Keshrabai. She and her daughter-Annuabai (P.W.1) 
H 
902 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 
A aged about 15 years at the relevant time were in their house. The appellant 
herein and three others entered in to their house armed with axe, phaliya, 
Jathies bow & arrows etc. Eight other persons had surrounded the entire 
house. They were also armed with deadly weapons. Allegedly, Badri assaulted 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.