SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [2010] 8 S.C.R. 373 · Decided: 09-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.K. JAIN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 8 S.C.R. 373 
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
(Criminal Appeal No. 227 of 2007) 
JULY 9, 2010 
[D.K. JAIN AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
ss. 3021149 and 3071149- Murder and attempt to murder c 
-
'Common object' - Eight accused armed with guns and 
other lethal weapons - One of them fired at the victims - One 
of the victims died at the spot - Another received injuries but 
survived - Vicarious liability of other accused - HELD: Once 
it is established that the unlawful assembly had common 
0 
object, it is not necessary that all persons forming unlawful 
assembly must be shown to have committed some overt act 
- 'Common object' does not require a prior concert and a 
com_mon meeting of minds before the attack - Ingredients of 
s~t49 - Explained - Both the courts below were correct in 
E 
coming to the conclusion that prosecution had established the 
case against all the accused. 
ss. 96 to 102 - Right of private defence of property - Out 
of eight accused armed with guns and other lethal weapons, 
one firing at the person who was cleaning the plot in dispute 
F 
with broomstick causing his death - The same accused also 
fired at the brother of deceased who received injuries but 
survived - HELD: Right of private defence is a defensive right 
- It is neither a right of aggression nor of reprisal - Burden of 
establishing the plea of self-defence is on the accused, but it G 
is not as onerous as that lies on the prosecution - Plea of 
self-defence has rightly been rejected by trial court as the 
accused had no right over the land much less a right to be 
protected at the cost of life of other persons - High Court also 
373 
H 
374 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 8 S.C.R. 
A rightly held that the accused being aggressors, could not 
claim right of self-defence. 
Criminal Law: 
Non-explanation of injuries on accused - HELD: Having 
B regard to the nature of the injuries, i.e. simple and superficial, 
suffered by one of the accused, prosecution case cannot be 
overthrown for non-explanation of the said injuries - Penal 
Code, 1860 - ss.302.149 and 3071149. 
c 
The five appellants along with three others were 
prosecuted for murder of 'US', the brother of PW-4, and 
attempting to murder PW-4. The prosecution case was 
that a title suit between 'US' (deceased) and the accused 
with regard to a plot of land in front of the house of 'US' 
0 was pending. On the date of the incident when 'US' was 
cleaning the said plot, accused 'RS' came there and 
protested against the same. Heated arguments ensued 
between them. On the instigation of another accused, 
'RS' went to his house and returned with a gun and other 
E accused persons who were also armed with lethal 
weapons. They exchanged hot and abusive language 
with 'US'. Accused 'RS' fired at 'US', who died at the spot. 
He also fired at PW-4 who sustained injuries on his head 
and face. Certain villagers including PWs 1, 2, 3 and 5 
F rushed to the spot meanwhile and witnessed the incident. 
Two of the accused died during the trial. The trial court 
convicted and sentenced accused 'RS' inter alia, u/ss 302 
and 307 IPC, four accused ulss 302/149 and 307/149 IPC, 
and the sixth accused u/s 148 IPC. Their appeal was 
dismissed by the High Court. 
G 
In the appeal filed by five accused, except accused 
'RS', it was contended for the appellants that (i) there was 
no evidence to show that there was any meeting of minds 
of the appellants as to the common object to commit the 
H offences alleged; (ii) when the suit relating to the dispute 
SIKANDAR SINGH & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR 
375 
of ownership of the land between the parties was still 
A 
pending in the court, the deceased and his brother had 
no business to clean the land, and the complainant party 
being the aggressor, the appellants acted in self-defence; 
and (iii) that the prosecution failed to explain the injuries 
sustained by appellant-accused 'SJ'. 
s 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 149 IPC has essentially two 
ingredients viz. (i) the commission of an offence by any 
member of an unlawful assembly and (ii) such offence 
C 
must be committed in prosecution of the common object 
of the assembly or must be such as the members of that 
assembly knew to be likely to be committed in 
prosecution of the common object. Once it is established 
that the unlawful assembly had a common object, it is not D 
necessary that all persons forming the unlawful assembly 
must be sho

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