DASHRATH SINGH versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 13-08-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. VENKATARAMA REDDI

Judgment (excerpt)

DASHRATH SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
AUGUST 13, 2004 
[P. VENKATARAMA REDD! AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Criminal Trial : 
Investigation-Defective investigation-IO omitted to make certain 
important points in the site plan-Effect of-Held: Though the investigation C 
was perfunctory yet it did not materially affect the substratum of the 
prosecution case which stood established by cogent and reliable evidence. 
Injuries on the accused-Non-mention of the same in FIR-Effect 
of-Held: Non-mention of injuries in FIR not a ground to discard the D 
explanation of injuries given at the trial., 
Injuries on the accused-Non-explanation-Effect of-Held: The 
weight to be given to non-explanation of injuries on the accused depends 
upon the quality of the prosecution evidence-Non-explanation of the E 
injuries is one of the factors that could be taken in!o account in evaluating 
the prosecution evidence and the intrinsic worth of the defence version. 
Injury-On the occipital region/skull-Weapon causing it-Held: 
Could be caused by a lathi or stick. 
F 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 154. 
Cognizable cases-Investigation in-Omissions in FIR-Informant 
failed to mention in FIR that his associates tried to resist the attack and 
that there was a fight-Effect of-Held: Such an omission should not be G 
given undue importance in view of reliable prosecution evidence and 
unreliable defence version. 
Penal Code, 1860: Sections 300 thirdly, 302, 304 and 326 read with 
S.149. 
H 
561 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Murder-Intention TO kill-Absence of-Effect-Accused inflicted an 
injury on the head of the deceased by a single blow-Deceased survived 
for 38 days after the injury-Trial court convicted the accused under S. 
302-High Court affirmed the conviction-Correctness of-Held: Both the 
Court's found that the common object was not to kill the deceased-
B Moreoever, after inflicting a single blow on the deceased the accused made 
no further move to attack him-This shows that the accused had no 
intention to kill the deceased-Further no report or case-sheet filed to 
indicate condition of deceased after surgery who survived for 23 days 
thereafter-Therefore, the scope of any intervening ailment unconnected 
C with the surgery is not ruled out-Prosecution has, therefore, ftiiled to 
establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the eventual cause of death was 
only the injury inflicted by the accused and nothing else-Hence, accused 
cannot be convicted under S. 302 or 304-Conviction altered to oni? under 
s. 326. 
D 
According to the prosecution, when P brought his cattle and tied 
them up at a small parcel of land, the appellant R and one G objected 
to the same and threatened him with dire consequences. After a few 
minutes, the appellant R armed with kanta, the other appellant D 
armed with a country-made pistol, G armed with lathis came to the 
E house of the informant and started inserting some pegs in front of his 
house. At that time, the informant was sitting near the well. The 
accused R, using abusive honguage against P, shouted that he should 
come out of the house. A few minutes later, as P came out of the room, 
D aimed a shot at him with the pistol. As it did not hit him, )} once 
F again fired; again, it missed the target. When P tried to run away, R 
stopped him and inflicted an injury on his head with kanta as a result 
of which P fell down. The nephew of the informant and his brother, 
in a bid to defend them, picked up the bamboos which were lying 
nearby and inflicted injuries on some of the accused persons. P was 
G 
taken to a nearby hospital where he died after 38 days and his dying 
declaration was recorded. No postmortem of the dead body was 
conducted. 
The trial court believed the eyewitnesses' account and the dying 
declaration. The trial court disbelieved the defence version that the 
H accused acted in self-defence. However, the trial court was of the view 
.... 
DASHRATH SINGH v. STATE 
563 
that the common object of the unlawful assembly was not to commit A 
the murder of P and the common object could only be to cause hurt 
or use criminal force against the prosecution party with a view to 
refraining P from asserting his rights over the disputed site. Therefore, 
the trial court held that the other members of the unlawful assembly 
could not be held vicariously liable for the acts of R and D, the B 
appellants. 
The trial court convicted R under Sections 302, 323 .and 324 read 
with 

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