RAM BILAS SINGH & ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1964] 1 S.C.R. 775 · Decided: 29-01-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

I S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
775 
satisfied that the impvgned provisions are consti-
tutional. The appeal fails and is dismissed. 
Appeal dismissed. 
RAM BILAS SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
(S. J. IMAM, K. SuBBA RAo, N. RAJAGOPALA 
AYYANGAR, and J. R. MuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Criminal 
Trial-Unlawful 
assembly-Acquittal of 
accused-Conviction of less than five.,-Legality of-Indian 
Penal Gode, s. 149. 
The facts alleged by the prosecution were these : 
The first appellant brought with him in a truck to the scene 
of the occurrence a mob of 40 to 50 persons including the other 
two appellants and four other persons who were acquitted by the 
trial court. The first appellant fired a shot from the gun which 
he was carrying which hit Laldeo Singh on the chest as a result 
of which he fell down. Thereupon none of the acquitted 
persons fired from his gun and the shot hit Laldeo Singh again. 
Thereupon another of the acquitted persons fired a shot at Laldeo 
Singh which killed him instantaneously. The first appellant fired 
two shots at one Deva Singh who was hit on his thigh. The other 
two appellants assaulted Deva Singh with lathis of the seven 
persons charged, four were acquitted. The appellants were convi· 
cted under s. 304 Part II read with s. 149 of the Indian Penal 
Code by the trial court. On appeal the High Court altered 
their conviction into one under s. 326 read with s. 149 of the 
Indian Penal Code .but maintained the convictions under 
s. 147 ands. 426 of the Indian Penal Code. It was contended 
before the Supreme Court that as there was no appeal before 
the High Court against the acquittal of the four acquitted 
persons who were alleged to have constituted the unlawful 
assembly along with the appellants there could be no finding 
that there was an unlawful assembly of which appellants were 
111cmbers and therefore, were liable for the acts of other members 
1963 
Kishon l hander 
v. 
Slate of Madhy• 
Pradesh 
flidayatullah. J. 
Janaary, 29. 
1953 
Ram Balas SiAth 
•• 
TAI "14tr oj BJ.. 
776 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
thereof and that an accused penon cannot be held liable 
vicariously for the act of an acquitted person. 
Held, that even assuming that the fatal injuries were 
caused to Laldco Singh by one of the four acc111itted persons, it 
was not open to the High Court to hold any of the appellanll 
liable for that act by resort to s. 149 of the Indian Penal 
Code. 
Held, further that the legal pvsition deducLle from the 
authorities was (i) that it is competent to a court to come to the 
conclusion that there was an unlawful assembly of five or more 
persons, arid actually convict less than that number for the 
offence if (a) the charge states that apart from the persons 
named, several other unidentified persons were also members of 
the unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit an 
unlawful act and the evidence led to prove this is accepted by 
the cowl; (b) or that the first 
information report and the 
evidence shovts such to be the case even though the charge does 
not state so; (c) or that though the charge and the prosecution 
witnesses named only the acquitted and the convicted accused 
ptrsons thcr.e is other evidence which discloses the cxbtcncc of 
named or other persons provided that iu cases (b) and (c) no 
prejudice has resulted to the convicted person by reason of the 
omission to mention in the charge that the other unnamed 
persons had also participated in the offence. 
Harchandra v. Rex. I.L.R. (1951) 2 All. 62, approved. 
Topanda.• v. State of Bombay, [1955) 2 S.C.R 881, R. v. 
Plummer, [1902] 2 K.B. 339, Bharwad Mepa Dana v. State of 
Bombay, [ 1960] .2 S.C.R. 172, Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 
[1962] 2 S.C.R. 395, Dalip Singh v. Stale of Punjrib, [1954] 
S.C.R. 145, Sund.r Sing!. v. Stall of Punjab [1962] Supp. 
2 S.C.R. 654, Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1962] Supp. 
3 S.C.R. 848, and Krishna Uovind Pa!il v. State of Maharaahtra, 
[1964] Vol. I S.C.R. 678, refened to. 
Hrld, also that the High Court had failed to determine 
material questions necessary for properly deciding the case, 
namely that it had not fully examined the evidence to come to 
a definite conclusion as to whether there was an unlawful 
ass<"mbly or not consisting of persons other than the acquitted 
penons and that the High Court had also failed to ascertain 
the particular act committed by any member or members of 
that assembly in furtherance of tile common object as also 
wheth

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