RAJBIR SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] 2 S.C.R. 1134 · Decided: 08-03-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
RAJBIR sr-.JGH 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. 
MARCH 8, 2006 
[ARUN KUMAR AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860---Sections 201, 301 and 302--Criminal Procedure 
Code, 1973-Sections 227 and 228(1) (b)-Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
C Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-Section 3(2) (iv)--Charges framed 
against respondent for involvement in murder of a Schedule Caste girl and 
running away with firearm from site of occurrence-High Court quashed the 
charges on the ground that the respondent never intended to kill the girl due 
to her caste and that she accidentall:y received injuries--.Correctness a/-
Held, the respondent is clearly guilty under section 301 lPC-On facts, the 
D respondent is prima facie involved in commission of crime under section 20 I 
!PC-Trial Court directed to proceed against respondent after framing 
appropriate charges. 
Appellant-complainant lodged an FIR with police alleging that 
accused came to his shop armed with firearms and fired at him and his 
E family members. His father and a girl, belonging_ to Schedule Caste 
community who was in the shop to purchase some articles, sustained 
firearm injuries and fell down. Both of them died on way to hospital. On 
the basis of the FIR, a case was registered under section 302 IPC and 
section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention 
F of Atrocities) Act. During the course of investigation, the name of 
respondent no. 2 also appeared as some witnesses stated that one of the 
accused handed over his firearm to him who ran away from the spot with 
it. The trial court framed charges against respondent no. 2 under section 
302 read with Section 34 IPC and under section 3(2) (v) of the SC/ST Act. 
Respondent no. 2 filed a criminal revision under section 397/401 Cr.P.C. 
G before High Court challenging the order of the trial court framing charges 
against him. The High Court allow1~d the revision by quashing the charges 
framed against respondent no. 2 under the SC/ST Act on the ground that 
the respondent never intended to kill the girl on the ground of her caste 
and that she accidentally received injuries. 
H 
1134 
RAJBIRSINGHv. STATEOFU.P. 
1135 
·Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The High Court completely ignored the provisions of 
section 301 IPC. The provision clearly shows that if the killing took place 
in the course of doing an act which a person intends or knows to be likely 
A 
to cause death, it ought to be treated as if the real intention of the killer 
had been actually carried out. The fact that there was no intention to cause B 
injury to the girl and she was accidentally hit can make no difference as 
according to the version of the prosecution, the accused intended to cause 
t 
injuries by firearm to the father of the complainant and in attempting to 
carry out the same, also caused injuries to her. The reasons given by the 
High Court for quashing the charges are wholly erroneous in law and C 
cannot be sustained. (1137-G; 1138-B; F-G] 
Shankarlal Kacharabhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat, AIR (1965) SC 
1260, relied on. 
1.2. The High Court did not at all apply the relevant test, namely, D 
whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or 
whether there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed 
an offence. If the answer is in the affirmative, an order of discharge cannot 
be passed and the accused has to face the trial. Section 301 IPC have been 
completely ignored by the High Court and the relevant criteria for judging 
the validity of the order passed by the trial court directing framing of E 
charges have not been applied. (1140-D, F] 
1.3. The prosecution case that one of the accused handed over his 
rifle to respondent no. 2 and thereafter he ran away from the scene of 
occurrence prima facie shows commission of an offence under Section 201 
IPC. Since two persons have been killed there should be separate and F 
distinct charge for each murder besides the charge under Section 3(2) (v) 
SC/ST Act. The charges framed against the accused who are alleged to 
have resorted to firing should be amended accordingly. The trial court 
before whom the trial of the other co-accused is pending, is directed to 
proceed against respondent no. 2 after framing appropriate charges and G 
try him in accordance with law. [1140-G, H; 1141-AI 
State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh, AIR (1977) SC 2018 and Stree Atyachar 
Virodhi Parishad v. Dilip Nathumal Chordia and Anr., (1989[
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.