CHARAN SINGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 925 · Decided: 10-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

CHARAN SINGH AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
ST A TE OF UTT AR PRADESH 
MARCH I 0, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT FASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 141, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 307: 
Assault and murder-Trial Court convicted accused persons for 
committing offences u!s 302 rlw Section 149 and u/s 307 rlw Section 149, and C 
sentenced them accordingly-High Court affirming conviction of 6 accused 
persons ordered acquittal of remaining accused as the material available was 
insufficient to prove their guilt-On appeal, Held: On the one hand, the trial 
Court and the High Court considered one of the accused on the same footing 
as other acquitted accused, on the other hand distinguished his case because D 
he was son of the main accused and on that basis established his motive in 
the crime-There is no scope for such distinction-Thus conviction cannot be · 
maintained 
Other accused-Conviction-Held: Ascribing of definite role to the 
accused for application of Section 149 unnecessary when all ingredients of E 
the Section established-Accused committed the crime by constituting unlawful 
assembly-Hence, conviction and sentence in respect of other five accused 
maintained. 
Common object vis-a-vis common intention-Distinction between- F 
Discussed. 
Words and Phrases: 
'unlawful assembly', 'knew', 'in prosecution of common object' and 
'common object'-Meaning of in the context of Section 149 !PC. 
G 
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day when one of the 
accused started constructing a passage adjacent to the wall of PWS, he 
raised objections and PW2 called persons from both the sides to resolve 
the dispute. Accused persons assembled allegedly armed with weapons and 
925 
H 
926 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
, A indulged in a quarrel with the persons from the prosecution side and 
threatened them with dire consequence. In the process, accused opened 
fire killing one person on the spot. Thereafter assaulted others and again 
opened fire, thereby killing two more persons and injuring others. Some 
of the accused also got injured. Accused ran away after committing the 
B crime. Police investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against 
24 accused persons. Trial Court found them guilty of committing the crime 
under Section 302 r/w Section 149 and Section 307 r/w Section 149 and 
sentenced them accordingly. High Court upheld the conviction of 7 accused 
persons. Since one of them was a juvenile, he was extended the benefit of 
Section 2(4) of the U.P. Children Act, and acquitted 15 accused persons 
C as sufficient material was not available to establish the crime against them; 
one of the accused died during pendency of the appea-1, thus appeal abated 
, against him. In respect of another accused, charge-sheet was not submitted 
by the Police. Hence the present appeal by the 6 accused persons. 
It was contended for the accused-appellants that the juvenile accused 
D inflicted serious injuries and other accused opened fire which has resulted 
in the death of 3 persons. Thus, it cannot be said that accused shared the 
common object for an unlawful assembly; that in the facts and 
circumstances of the case, Section 149 IPC is riot applicable; and that there 
was no distinctive features in respect of one of the convict vis-a-vis the 
E acquitted accused persons acquitted by the High Court who were similarly 
placed and on mere surmise motive for commission of the crime was 
established against him. 
F 
Allowing the appeal of one of the accused and dismissing the other 
appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. 
Though the High Court noted that one of the accused/ 
appellant stands on the same footing as other acquitted accused persons, 
however, the Trial Court and the High Court distinguished his case by 
observing that he being the son of the main accused, the prime mover of 
the crime, he might have a motive. In the absence of any positive material 
G in that regltrd, there is no scope for distinguishing his case from the other 
accused persons who have been acquitted. Hence, his conviction cannot 
be ma.intained. r933-A-B) 
2.1. Section 149 IPC has its foundation on constructive liability 
H which is the sine qua non for its operation. The emphasis is on the common 
CHARAN SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 
927 
object and not on common intention. Mere presence in an unlawful A 
assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object 
and he was actuated by that common object and that object is one of those 
se

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