SHEORAM SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P.

Citation: [1973] 1 S.C.R. 939 · Decided: 23-08-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SHEORAM SINGH & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 
August 23, 1972 
[J. M. SHELAT, /.D. DUA AND H. R. KHANNA, JJ.J 
Jmlinn Penal Code ( 45 of 1860) ,s. 34-CircurnstanceJ for invocatiorr 
of. 
Seven accused attad,ked one of the prosecution witnesses who took 
refuge inside a house. 
The deceased and th~ prosecution 'Witness went 
to the roof of the hoUSe when one of the accused, who was th~ father 
of the appellant, asked the deceased to tum out the prosecution witness 
as otherwise i: would be bad for him also. On his refusal to do so 
that accused shot at the deceased with a RUn and the dectased died. The 
aPl)ellant. thereafter, fired at the proscution witness and caused him an 
injury. All the accused were charged wi,th offences under s.302, s.302 
read with s.149, s.307 read with s.149, s.307, s..l48 and s.147, I.P.C. 
Tbe trial court acquitted them. 
On appeal the High Court .• held that 
the death of the deceased took place as a result of the firing by the father 
of the appellant and convicted him under s.302. l.P.C. Tite appellant. 
·\vbo injured the prosecution wjtness by firing a shot at him, was con-
victed under s.307. I.P.C. The appellant was also convicted under 1!1.302 
read with s. 149 in connection with the death of the deceased and ~l.so 
under s.l48 for the offence of rioting with a deadly weapon. As regards 
tbe other accused, the Hi~h Court held that their common ohiect was 
t.o till the prosecution witness and not the deceased. Therefore, the 
High Court com;cted them of the offence under s.307 r~ad with s. 149' 
f.P.C., and acquitted them of the offence under s.302 read with s. 149. 
In appeal to this Court., 
HELD : ( 1) The reasons for acquitting the other five accused for 
the offence under s.302 read with s.149. I.P.C. hold equally good in 
relation to the aQ.oellant also, and hence his conviction for that offem:\.' 
~ouJd not be sustained. [943E~F] 
(2) A common intention can develop during the cours0 
of 
an 
occurTencc but there has to be cogent material on the basis of which 
she Court can arrive.. at such a finding and hold one accused vit·ariouslv 
liable for the act of another accused by invoking s.34, l.P.C. [944C-Dl 
ln the present case, there is nothing to show that there wa~ a11' 
~xhortation or encouragement by the appc11ant to his father to fire at 
the deceased. 
The words attributed to the father indicate that he W?.~ 
not willing to. spai·e the deceased if the latter did not turn out the pro-
secution witness from his house, but it could not be inferred from that 
that the appellant. shared the intention of his father or that the abot 
was fired bv the rather at th~ deceased in furtherance of their common 
intention,. 
Jt ?oes not fo11ow from th,e shot fired bv the appellant at thr 
prosccu11on. Wltness that the shot fired at the deceased by his father wa~ 
also fired in furtherance of the intention of the appellant [9430-H· 944A-
Cl 
. 
' 
Hence the appellar.t could not be found guilty under s.302 read with 
~. 34 J.P.C.. also. [9440] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : 
Criminal 
Appeal 
~,), 215 of 1969. 
940, 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1973] 1 S.C.R. 
~ppeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
~pnl 15, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench)' 
m Cr. A. No. 957 of 1965. 
J. P. Goyal and S. M. Jain, for the appellants. 
D. P. Uniyal, V. MayakrishTUJn and 0. P. Rana, for the 
rt!&pondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was Jelivered by 
K~a, J. Arjun Singh (~7), his son ·sheoram Singh alias 
.Bhu~ S1n,dl (27), Ja~atpal Singh (29), Ganga 
Deen (29). 
~am .Nath (39), Sheo Pr~ad (30) 3:Dd. Jumrnan 
(30) were 
tned m the court of Addttlonal Sess1ons 
Judge Unnao for 
offences under section 302, section. 302 read with section 149. 
secti.on 307. section 307 read with section 149, section 
148 
and section 147 Indian Penal Code and were ·acquitted. 
On 
appeal by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the P llahabad Hi~h Court 
convicted Arjun Singh under section 302, 8cction 307 read witl& 
!l;ection 149, and ~ection 148 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced 
him to undergo imprisonment for life on the first count, rigoCOUil 
imprisonment fot a period of .five years on the second count 
and ri~orous imprisonment for a period of two years on the 
tf:tird count: 
Sheoram Singh was convicted. under section 302 
read with· section 149, section 307 and section 148 Indian PenaJ 
· Code. and was .. sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life oa 
tho first count, ri~orou
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.