LexSUKH RAM versus STATE OF U. P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
518
SUKHRAM
1'.
STATE OF U. P.
N01·ember 2~. 1973
[S. N. DWIVEDI ANDY. v. C:HANDRACHUD, JJ.]
Penal Code-S. 302 read withs. 34-Two of the three named accused acquitted-
Whether the third could be convicted wirh the aid of s. 34.
The appellant, along with two others, was tried for an offence under s. 302,
I. P. C. read withs. 34, I. P. C.
The Sessions Judge acquitted one of the accused,
while the High Court acquitted another but the appellant was convicted and senten-
ced. Th'e charge specifically mentioned that the murder was committed by the three
accused named therein.
B
In appeal to this Court it was contended that after the acquittal of two of the three
C
accused by the two courts below, the appellant could not be convicted with the aid
of s. 34, I. P. C.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: In view of the unambiguous evidence tendered by the prosecution in
the Sessions Court no prejudice can be ~id to have been caused to the appellant by
reason of his conviction under s. 302 read withs. 34, I. P. C. even though the two
other accused specificillly named in the charge had been acquitted. The defence
D
adopted by the appellant di~.,;osed an awareness on his part of the substance and
true nature of the allegations levelled against him. Though the charge confined
participation in the crime to three narned individuals evidence was led to show that
the murder was ~committed by the appellant and two other persons, the fatal shot
having b' -n fired by one of the two. While examining him under s .. 342, Cr.--P. C.
the Sessiuu .. Judge questioned him in regard to his participation in the crime along
with his companions not along with the two named co-accused. The High Court was
certain. that there were three culprits and the appellant was one of them. It is clear
that notwithstanding the charge, the acquittal of the two accu~ed raised no bar to
E
the conviction of the appellant under s. 302 read with s. 34, I. P. C. A possible pre-
judice to the accused, on a reasonable ''iew of the course the trial had taken, was
the true touchstor.c of such matters.
[5t9G-H; 520B&EJ
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, [1954] S. C.R. 145; 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, relied on
Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1962) Suppl. 3 S. C.R. 848, and Kiishna Govlnd
p
Patil v. State of Maharashtra, {1964] 1 S. C.R. 678, distinguished.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JuRtsmcnc~; · Criminal Appeal No. 99 of
1970.
Appeal by Speciai Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the
28th January 1970 of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal
No. 1888 of 1967.
D. Mukherjee, A. T. M. Sampath and E. C. Agrawala, for the
appellant.
D. P. Uniya/ and 0. P. Rana, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DwIVEDI J.-Three persons, Mahendra Singh, Lakhan Singh and
the appellant Sukh Ram, were tried for the murder of one Chunni Lal
under s. 302 read withs. 34. I. P. C. by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh.
The Sessions Judge acquitted Mahendra Singh, and convicted and sen-
tenced the remaining two to imprisonment for life. On appeal the
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUKHRAM v. U.P. STATE (Dwivedi, 1.)
519
High Court of Allahabad acquitted Lakhan Singh and affirmed the
conviction and sentence of the appellant. Hence this appeal.
The deceased Chunni Lal has a tea stall near the Bus Stand .in
Sasni. He was shot dead on 9-3-1967 at about 10-30 p.m. The·
First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Sunder Lal,
a relation of the deceased. The prosecution examined Sunder Lal,.
Radhey Shyam,. Puran Mal and Devi Prasad to prove its case agamst
the aforesaid accused. The Sessions Judge believed all the witnesses.
In a careful and sifting analysis of the entire evidence, the learned
Judges of the High Court (S. D. Khare and Jagmohan Lal Sinha JJ.)
have winnowed out al\ evidence which could legitimately be objected
to by the appellant and have held that the remaining evidence clearly
brought home the guilt to him. Counsel for the appellant could not
point out any infirmity in their opinion. We have read the entire
evidence, and we are satisfied that they have rightly found the app~llant
guilty of the murder of Chunni Lal.
Counsel for the appellant has, however, strenuously urged f.rore·
us that after the acquittal of Mahendra Singh and Lakhan Singh,.
the appellant could not be convicted with the aid of s. 34 l.P.C.
TExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.