HARE KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 24-02-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

HARE KRISHNA SINGH & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
FEBRUARY 24, 1988 
[MURARI MOHON DUTT AND 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Sections 34, 96, 100, 302 and 379---Common intention is not by 
itself an offence-It creates a joint and constructive liability for the 
crime committed in furtherance of such common intention-Guilt of 
accused-Burden of proof is on prosecution-Not necessary for pro-
C 
secution to explain how and in what circumstances injuries inflicted on 
person of accused. 
Indian Evidence ·Act, 1872: Section 9-Test Identification 
parade-Failure to identify accused by P. W. effect of on case of 
prosecution. 
D 
The prosecution case as appearing from the Fardbeyan or the FIR 
lodged by P.W. 3, a social worker was that on 12.12.1987 at about 7.00 
A.M. he was going to his brother-in-law and just as he reached the 
main gate of the Sadar Hospital, he saw seven persons: ( l) Hare 
Krishna Singh, (2) Sheo Narain Sharma, (3) Ram Kumar Upadhyaya, E 
(4) Jagdish. Singh's nephew-Paras Singh of Birampur, (5) Hare 
Krishna Singh's brother-in-law, Paras Nath Singh of Dhobaha, the 
appellants and two more whom he could not identify. All these persons 
were armed with rifle, gun. and pistol and were standing near the 
northern side of the eastern gate, of the Hospital. At that time two 
Rickshaws were coming from the eastern side. In the front rickshaw the F 
deceased-Jitendra Choudhary, was sitting along with anothe1· person 
and in the rear rickshaw were his two sisters, PW l and PW 2. As the 
rickshaw of the deceased came close to these seven persons, Hare 
Krishna Singh fired at the deceased from his gun, whereupon the latter 
fell down from the rickshaw with the rifle which·he was carrying. The 
other persons also fired upon the deceased as a result of which he died. G 
After that Hare Krishna Singh picked up the rifle of the deceased and 
took to his heels. After investigation by PW 9, the charge sheet was 
submitted against all the appellants and they were put up for trial. 
The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses of whom PWs. 
· 1, 2, 3 and 8 were eye witnesses. The defence of the appellant-Hare 
H 
1 
A 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 3 S.C.R. 
Krishna Singh was that while he was going to Patna along with appel-
I ant-Ram Kumar. Upadhyaya and one Madan Singh in a rickshaw, 
and that when the rickshaw in which the deceased was travelling came 
close to him, the deceased fired at him and that he sustained injuries. 
He examined five witnesses DWs. l to 5, to prove the nature of injury 
sustained by him. The defence of Paras Singh of Dhobaha was that he 
B 
had not visited the village for the last fifteen years, while the defence of 
the other remaining appellants was a denial of their complicity in the 
crime. 
'· 
-
c 
The Additional Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution case, and 
convicted and sentenced the appellants to various periods of imprison-
ment. 
On appeal by the appellants the High Court affirmed the convic-
tions and sentences. 
In the appeals by certificate to this Court it was contended: 
D 
(a) On behalf of Hare Krishna Singh, appellant in Crl. A. No. 690/82 
that the prosecution having failed to explain the injury sustained . by 
Hare Krishna Singh in the same occurrence, such injury being a serious 
one, the prosecution witnesses should be disbelieved, and that in such 
circumstances <it should be held that the plea of the appellant of self-
defence shall be probabilised and that the prosecution 111ust have with-
E 
held the true facts as to the genesis and origin of the occurrence, mid 
that in any event a great doubt had been cast on the prosecution case 
and the benefifof that doubt should go to the appellant. 
" 
~·· 
(b) On behalf of Paras Singh of Birampur, the nephew of Jagdish 
Singh, the sole appellant in Cr. A. No. 616/82 that in the FIR his name j-
F . was not mentioned, that PW J.failed to identify him in the T.I. Parade, 
• 
G 
that PW 8 did not attend the T .I. Parade, and that he was not present at 
the time of occurrence. 
(c) On behalf of Sheo Narain Sharma the remaining appellant in 
Crl. A. No. 690l82 and Ram Kumar Upadhayaya sole appellant in Crl. 
A. No. 615/82, that no specific overt act had been attributed to either of 
them and the fact that they were found in the company of Hare KrishDa 
Singh and Paras Singh of Dhobaha could not be sufficient to impute 
common intention to them. 
Dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 1982 in so far as it relates · 
H 

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