LexBHAJAN SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
n
BHAJAN SINGH & ORS.
v
STATE OF U.P.
April 9, 1974
891
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. Gos\VAMI AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.]
Indian Penal Code (Act 45 of 1860), s. 149--Scopt of.
Co11.r1itutio11 of !11dia, 1950, Art. 136-Crhnbral
appeal-lluerference
by
Supreint Court.
The three appellants and two others were convicted for an offence under
s. 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Hig1t Court,
affirming the judgtnent of the t.rial court,
C
Dismissing the appeoil by special Jeave,
D
E
G
H
HELD: (I) Jn an appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution this Court is
\'Cry slow to interfere with the concurrent conclusions of the two courts below
with r;egard to appreciation of evidenci: of tfie witnesses.
The accused must be
;iblc to make out an extraordinary case of gross and palpable injustice to induc~
this Court to take a view conlrary to th<it arrived at by the High Court [893 EJ
{2) The evidence disclosed that tht! rive accused were men1bers of an
un-
Jc1wful assembly with the common object to kill the deceased.
Th~ ntanner in
which the defence was conducted in the tri'<tl court shows that the· accused v.erc
not prejudiced by the use of the Word 'beat' in the charge. [893 G-894 DJ
(3) Even if the accused were originally members of unlawful assembly wilft
the common object of only beating the deceased they would be guilty under
s. 302 read with the second limb of s. 149. Since they came armed with
deadly weapons and knew that' by using thOSe deadly weapans upon the de-
ceased death would be caused. This is not a case where something f'oreign
or unknown to the original object had taken place all of a sudden. Even
<1ssunting that the unlawful assembly was formed originally only to beat, it
is clearly established in the evidence that the said object is well-knit with what
followed a.s the dangerous finale of the beating. It was the execution of the
same common object which assumed the fearful character implicit in the illegal
action undertaken by the five accused.
[894 F-G; 895 A~E]
K. C. Mathew t111d otl1ers v. Tlie State of Trara11core-Cochbz I1955J 3 S.C.R.
1057, followed.
(-4) There is no circumstance in ·the case which can bring it under s.
304'
I. P .C. [894GJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Criminal Appeal No. 10 of
1970.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 29th
August. 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 568
o! 1967.
C. L. Sarin and R. L. Kohli, for the appellants.
D. P. Uniyal and o. P. Rana, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Qiurt was delivered by
GosWAMI, J. This criminal appeal by special leave
is
directed
against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court affirming the convic-
tion of the five appellants, Bhajan Singh, Chain Singh, Bald•o Singh
Jagat Singh and Gurbachan Singh under seetion 302/149 I. P. C. and
892
SUPREME COURT Rl!PORTS
(1974] 3 6.C.R.
,
sentence of illlprisonment for Ji& oo each of them.
~~,:!:'" Singh,
Chain Singh ap.d Jagat Singh have further been convicted
secticJi
147 J. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year eaeh
and the two other appellants have also been convicted under section
148 I. P. C. and sentenced to one and a half years rigorous imprison-
ment each. Special leave was refused to Baldev Singh and Gur&achan
Singh.
The prosecution case may brielly be stated :
A
B
Chain Singh and Baldeo Singh arc sons of Bhajan Singh, Gur-
bachan Singh is the ~n of J agat Singh. The deceased is Baklisheesh
Singh, who was the brother of Major Singh and a cousin of appellant,
Bhajan Singh. Major Singh had purchased some land in their village
C
Paivandkheri from one Sohan Singh and Gurbachan Singh was in un-
lawful possession of over 15. to 16 bighas of the said land. There was
litigation between Gurbachan Singh and Major Singh in re>pect of this
land. Gurbachan Singh subsequently sold his entire land including the
.disputed area to Bhajan Singh. Thereafter Major Singh and hfa father
Ujagar Singh asked Bhaja~ Singh to give up possession over the lanu
purchased by Major Singh and, on the day before the occurrence, sug-
I>
gested to him that they should go to the Patwari and settle the matter
to which Bhajan Singh agreed. On September 17, 1964, at about 11.30
A.M. Bakhshecsh started on a cycle for the house of the Patwari with
papers in connection with the disputed land. He was followed on foot,
by his father, Ujagar Singh and broExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.