BHUPENDRA SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 14-03-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
BHUPENDRA SINGH AND ORS. 
V. 
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH 
MARCH 14, 1991 
[A.M. AHMADI, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
FATHIMA BEEVI, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code: Death ca_use by rifle shot-Body removed·~­
and burnt-Recoveries made from the place of occurrence-Evidence of 
witnesses as to place of occurrence uniform-Prosecution case about the 
place of occurrence established. 
Fire arms used-First shot by Al from the rifle-Firing by others 
followed-Whether first shot hit the forehead of the deceased and 
whether injury caused by that shot caused his death-Evidence of 
witnesses that first shot was fired by A 1 is consistant but it cannot be Y 
D 
predicated whether this hit the deceased on his forehead and that injury 
caused his death-Conviction of Alunder section 302 J.P.C. altered to 
one under section 307 I. P. C. 
Nineteen persons were tried by the Additional District and 
Sessions Judge, Khetri in S. T. No. 264 of 1973 for offences under 
E 
sections 302/149, 201/149, 379/149, 147 and 148 for the incident that ~ 
took place on 25.4.1972 in village Padaria Tula (UP) on the day of tiling 
of the nomination papers for election for the post of Pradhan Gaon 
Sabha, Tikhra in which fire arms were used by the party led by 
Bhupendra Singh accused no. 1, who was also a candidate for the office 
_...
of Pradhan of Gaon Sabha resulting in the death on the spot of 
F 
Gajendra Singh, one of the supporters of the riv&) .~ndidate Ram 
Sewak, P. W .2. 
' 
r 
' The prosecution case is that both the rival candidates with their ,_;y' 
supporters had come to village Padaria Tula on the morning of 
25.4.1972 where nomination papers had to be filed. On seeing the party 
G 
of the deceased arriving, Bhupendra Singh enquired from Ram Sewak 
(P. W .2) if he had come to file his nomination papers against h,im. 
Gajendra Singh (deceased) intervened and challengingly told the 
accused no. 1 that he should ask him. Following the altercation that-.{ 
ensued, it is alleged that Bhupendra Singh fired the first shot on the 
deceased followed by shooting by his other associates and the deceased 
H 
fell dead. The. party of Ram Sewak fled from the scene to escape the 
856 
BHUPENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH. 
857 
~attack. It is further alleged that the body of the deceased was dragged 
by Gajendra Singh and his companions and carried by them on a 
tractor-trolly belonging to Al on which they had come, burnt it and 
ashes thrown in the river causing disappearance of the entire evidence. 
The first Additional Session~ Judge acquitted all the accused of all 
the charges on the ground that there are many intirmities in the prosecu-
tion case rendering its evidence unworthy of belief. The State of Uttar 
,,>Pradesh preferred appeal before the Lucknow Bench· of the Allahabad 
High Court. The High Court set aside the acquittal of Bhupendra 
Singh (Al) and convicted him for offence under section 302 I.P.C. and 
'--~-awarded sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life, set aside the 
_ 
acquittal of A 4, 7, 8 in part, convicted them under section 201 of I.P .C. 
-
and sentenced each of them to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment 
thereunder. Their acquittal under other charges was confirmed. 
~ 
Appeal as against rest of the accused was dismissed altogether. AI, 4, 7 
and 8 have thus come in appeal against the judgment of the High Court. 
)._ 
In partly allowing the appeal setting aside the conviction of appel-
lants 2 to 4 (A4, 7, 8) under section 201 I.P.C., and altering the convic-
tion of appellant No. 1 (Al) from one under sedion 302 I.P.C. to one 
under section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to a term of 10 years 
rigorous imprisonment thereunder, this Court, 
HELD: The evidence only established that the first appellant shot 
at the deceased but it is not known where the bullet hit and whether that 
injury caused by the said bullet shot caused the death. Even in the case 
of shooting by a rifle unless the evidence shows the particular injury 
caused by the same and that injury is sufficient to cause death, the 
offence under section 302 I.P.C. could not be said to have been made 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
out. In the circumstances, therefore, we are unable to agree with the 
F 
->.::'-High Court that the first appeHant is guilty of otTeuce under section 302 
IPC of causing the death of Gajendra Singh. However we are of the view 
that while the first appellant shot at the deceased there could be no 
doubt that either he had the intention to kill him or at least he 

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