MAINA SINGH versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 651 · Decided: 17-03-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
• 
MAINA SINGH 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
March 17, 1976 
[R. S. SARKARIA AND P. N. SHJNGHAL, JJ.] 
651 
Penal Code-Murder-Co-iiccused acquitted-Appellant alone co11victed-
s. 149 or s. 34-lf applicable. 
A 
B 
'The appellant and 'tour others Were charged 'vith offences under S<i. 302/149 
I.P.C., the appellant with having shot at the deceased and the other accused 
with giving blows to the deceased with a sharp-edged weapon. The trial co1ni 
acquitted the four accused but convicted the appellant under s. 302 read with 
s. 34, I.P.C-. 
The High Court dismissed the appeal of the State against acquit-
C 
tal as also lhe appellant's appeal against conviction. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended for the appellant that it was not 
permissible to take the view that a criminal act was done by the appellant 
in furtherance of the common intention of the other accu~ed when those accus-
ed who had been named had all been acquitted and that all that was permis-
sible for the High Court was to convict the appellant of an offence \vhich he 
might have committed in his individual capacity. 
D 
• 
'Allowing the appeal in part, 
HELD : It was not permissible for the High Court to invoke s. 149 or s. 34. 
J.P.C. 
[659D-E] 
( 1) In a given case even if the charge disclosed only the named persons as 
co-accused and the prosecution witnesses confined their testimony to them. it 
would be permissible to conclude that others, hamed or unnamed, acted con-
E 
jointly with one of the charged accused if there was other evidence to lead 
to that conclusion, but not otherwise. 
[657D] 
The charge in the present case related to the commission of the offence 
of unlawful assembly by the appellant along with four named co-accused, and 
with no other person. The trial in fact went on that basis throughout. 
There 
was also no direct or circumstantial evidence to show that the offence was 
committed by the appellant along with any other unnamed person. 
So when 
the other four co-accused had been given the benefit of doubt and acquitted, 
it would not be permissible to take the view that there must have been some 
other person along with the appellant in causing injuries to the deceased. 
The 
appellant would accordingly be responsible for the offence, if any, which could 
be shown to have been committed by him without regard to the participation 
of others. 
[659C-E] 
Dharam Pal v. The Stale of U.P., A.l.R. 1975 S.C. 1917 explained and fol· 
lowed. 
The Ki11g v. Plummer, [1902] 2 K.B. 339; Topandas v. The State of Bombay, 
[1955] 2 S.C.R. 881; Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1962] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
-'. 
848; Krishna Guvind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, [1964] 1 S.C.R. 678; Ram 
Bilas Singh v. State tYf Bihar, [1964] I S.C.R. 775 and Yeswa11t v. State of 
Maharashtra, [1973] I S.C.R. 291 referred to. 
F 
G 
(2) The appellant was guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to 
the 
deceased by means of an instrument for shooting and was. therefore, guilty 
H 
of an offence under s. 326 I.P.C. From the medical evidence, it is not possible 
to say that the death of the deceased was caused by gun shot or by blunt 
weapon injuries. It however proved that the appellant inflicted gun shot in-
juries on the deceased, one of the injuries being grievous. 
[659H] 
652 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1976] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 242 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
of 1971. 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
21-4-1971 of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in D. B. Criminal 
Appeal No. 343 of 1969. 
Harbans Singh for the Appellant. 
S. M. lain for Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHINGHAL, J.-This appeal of Maina Singh arises out of the judg-
ment of the Rajasthan High Court date<! April 21, 1971 upholding 
the trial court's judgment convicting him of an offence under s. 302 
read with s. 34 I.P.C. for causing the death of Amar Singh and of 
an offence under s. 326 I.P.C. for causing grievous injuries to Amar 
Singh's son Ajeet Singh (P.W. 2), and sentencing him to imprisonment 
for life for the offence of murder and to rigorous imprisonment for 
three years and a fine of Rs. 100 /- for the other offence. 
The deceased Amar Singh and accused Maina Singh and his three 
sons Hardeep Singh, Jee! Singh and Puran Singh used to live in 'chak' 
No. 77 GB, in Ganganagar district of Rajasthan while Narain Singh 
used to live in another 'chak'. It was alleged that the relatic>ns bet-
ween 

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