# JAGIR SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB

- **Citation:** [1967] 3 S.C.R. 256
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1967-03-21
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 210 of 1966
- **Bench:** R. $. Bachawat, J. M. Shelat
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jagir-singh-v-state-of-punjab-4043
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860). s. 34-Two convicted,
other accused acquitted-Applicability.
The two appellants and four other named persons were charged for
murder. The Sessions Judge acquitted
the four persons but sentenced
A
B
the two appellants under ss. 302 and 201 read with s. 149 I.P.C. The
High Court altered the convictions to those under ss. 302 and 201 read c
with s. 34. In appeal to this Court,
HELD : The appeal. must be dismissed.
Where six named accused persons are ·charged under s. 302 read with
s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder and the evidence
is directed to establish that the said six persons have taken part in the
murd<jr and it is not known who gave the fatal blow, on the acquittal of
four persons the remaining two accused can be convicted of the offence
under s. 302 read with s. 34.
Even if it was not known which particular person Or persons gave the fatal blows, once it was found that the
murilers were committed ·in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each one of all such persons was liable as though the murders had been
committed by him alone.
Section 34 is ·intended to meet a case where
members of a party acted in furtherance of the common intention of all
but it was difficult to prove exactly the part played by each of them.
The principle which the section embodies is the participation in some
action with the intention of committing a crime; once such participation
is established, s. 34 is at once attracted. [260B; 260H-261B]
Bharwad Mepa Dana & Anr. v. State of Bombay,
(1960] 2 S.C.R.
I 72, applied .
D
E
. Prabhu Babaii Novle v. State of Bombay, A.J.R. 1956 S.C. SI, disF
tinguished.

## Text

JAGIR SINGH
v.
STATE OF PUNJAB
March 21, 1967
[R. $. BACHAWAT AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.j
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860). s. 34-Two convicted,
other accused acquitted-Applicability.
The two appellants and four other named persons were charged for
murder. The Sessions Judge acquitted
the four persons but sentenced
A
B
the two appellants under ss. 302 and 201 read with s. 149 I.P.C. The
High Court altered the convictions to those under ss. 302 and 201 read c
with s. 34. In appeal to this Court,
HELD : The appeal. must be dismissed.
Where six named accused persons are ·charged under s. 302 read with
s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder and the evidence
is directed to establish that the said six persons have taken part in the
murd<jr and it is not known who gave the fatal blow, on the acquittal of
four persons the remaining two accused can be convicted of the offence
under s. 302 read with s. 34.
Even if it was not known which particular person Or persons gave the fatal blows, once it was found that the
murilers were committed ·in furtherance of the common intention of all,
each one of all such persons was liable as though the murders had been
committed by him alone.
Section 34 is ·intended to meet a case where
members of a party acted in furtherance of the common intention of all
but it was difficult to prove exactly the part played by each of them.
The principle which the section embodies is the participation in some
action with the intention of committing a crime; once such participation
is established, s. 34 is at once attracted. [260B; 260H-261B]
Bharwad Mepa Dana & Anr. v. State of Bombay,
(1960] 2 S.C.R.
I 72, applied .
D
E
. Prabhu Babaii Novle v. State of Bombay, A.J.R. 1956 S.C. SI, disF
tinguished.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :
Criminal Appeal
No. 210 of 1966.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
March 22, 1966 of the Punjab High Court in Criminal Appeal
G
No. 26 of 1966 and Murder Reference No. 2 of 1966.
Jai Gopal Sethi, C. L. Saretn .and R, L. Kohli, for the appellants,
Hans Raj Khanna and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Bachawat, J. Six persons including the two appellants were
tried for offences under s. 148, s. 302 read with s. 149 ands. 201
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
JAGIR SINGH v. STATE (Bachawal, !.)
251
read with s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the
murder of Tarlok Singh son of Amar Singh of Purana Pind. .The
six accused were ( l) J agir Singh of Purana Pind, (2) Tarlok Smgh
of Udhoke, (3) Wassan Singh of Purana Pind, (4) Jagir Singh of
Bhumbli, (5) Dyal Singh of Dalla and (6) Pritam Singh of Dalla.
Tarlok Singh deceased was brutally attacked on the threshing floor
of Amar Singh at a distance of eighty feet from his Haveli near
the outskirt of village Purana Pind on April 27, 1965 at about
4 p.m. The prosecution case was that all the six accused came
to the spot with the object of killing Tar!ok Singh, accused 5 was
riding a white mare and carrying a spear, and the remaining five
accused were on foot and were armed with kirpans or swords.
Accused 5 shouted a challenge saying that Tarlok Singh must not
be spared, uccused 4 gave two kirpan blows on his feet, accused
I gave a sword blow on his neck and the other accused caused injuries to him with their swords. When the victim was almost dead,
he was placed on the mare in front of accused 5 and all the six
accused proceeded towards village Manoharpura. At a distance
of about a mile near the canal minor, the body of the victim was
thrown on the ground and accused 2 chopped the head from his
body. Accused 2 and 5 rode away on the mare with the severed
head wrapped in the chaddar and turban of the victim and the
other accused followed on foot.
The motive for the attack was
that Munsha Singh father of accused 1 was murdered in July, 1964.
Amar Singh, Tarlok Singh deceased and one Sawan Singh were
tried for the murder but they were convicted of a lesser offence for
which they were sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment.
They served out their sentences and returned to village Purana
Pind about two months before April 27, 1965. The first information report of the murder of Tarlok Singh was lodged on April
27, 1965 at 5.30 p.m. The investigating officer reached the spot
at about 6.30 p.m.
The trunk of the dead body was recovered
at a place about a mile distant from village Purana Pind near the
canal mmor. '!he he'.ld was n~ver recovered. The identity of the
t~unk was satI~fa~t?nl.Y estabhshed.
The post-mortem examination revealed six m1unes. In the opinion of the medical witness
the death resulted from the cutting of the neck, caused with som~
sharp-~ged heavy weapon. The first information report stated that
the assailants of Tarlok Singh were accused 1 3 s 6 on H b
Singh
d
J
·1 s·
• • • , e ar ans
an one . arnai
mg who were then said to have played th
parts later. ascribed to nc~us~d· 2 and 4. All the six accused an~
H~r?ans Sm¥h and J.arna1I Smgh were charge-sheeted. The comm1ttmg m~g1stratc d.1scharged Harbans Singh and Jarnail Sin h
and com1111.tted the six a~cused to the Sessions Court for trial T~e
fo11r eye:w!tnesses. exanm~ed at the trial were Amar Singh, father
of the victim, Jogmder Smgh son of Amar Singh Bachan s· h
son-in-law of Amar Singh and Chhinda whose ~aternal u~~~·:
daughter was betrothed to the victim.
Amar Singh was injured
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1967] 3 S.C,R.
by one of the culprits when he tried to intervene in the attack on
his son.
He made contradictory statements with regard to the
identity of the culprit who had ;injured him and the six culprits who
had participated in the attack on his son.
The Sessions Judge
acquitted accused 2, 3, 4 and 6. He was not satisfied that the witnesses had correctly identified accused 2, 4 and 6. He gave accused 3 the benefit of doubt 'as the evidence of the witnesses regarding his presence was not corroborated by other evidence.
The
courts below found that there could be no ·mistake about the
identity of accused 1 and 5.
With regard to their identity, the
veracity of Amar Singh was not shaken and the evidence of the
three other eye-witnesses was consistent positive and unimpeachable. Accused 1 made a disclosure statement and pointed out a
place near the bank of the canal about a mile or a mile and a
half from the place where the trunk of the dead body had been
found.
Four pieces of teeth, one piece of skull bone and hair
recovered from the place pointed out by accused 1 were found to
be of human origin. There is reason to believe that the severed
head of the victim was cut to pieces at the spot.
A kirpan was
also recovered in consequence of the disclosure statement made by
accused l, but the High Cou'rt placed no reliance on this discovery as it was not•known to whom the place of recovery belonged.
A chaddar was recovered from accused 1 at the time of his arrest.
The chaddar had been washed but on examination by the chemical
examiner and seriologist it was found that it had stains of human
blood. Both accused 1 and 5 had a strong motive for the murder.
Though the courts below discarded a part of the prosecution story
and gave the benefit of doubt to four accused, they were justified
in accepting the prosecution case regarding the participation of
accused 1 and 5 in the attack on the victim.
The Sessions Judge convicted accused 1 and 5 of the offences
under ss. 302 and 201 read with s. 149 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentenced them to death and five years rigorous imprisonment.
The High Court altered the convictions to those under ss. 302 and
201 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and confirmed the
sentences.
Accused 1 and 5 have now filed this appeal to this
Court.
The High Court recorded the following finding :
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
"The finding, therefore, in concurrence with that of
the learned trial Judge, is that six persons, of whom appellant Dyal Singh of D.alla was armed with a spear and
was riding on a mare and the five others were armed with
H
Kirpans, including appellant J agir Singh of Purana Pind,
arrived at the threshing floor of Amar Singh P.W. 1, that
there Tarlok Singh deceased received injuries at their
A
c
D
E
F
G
H
JAGIR SINGH v. STATE (Bachawat, J.)
259
hands, a particular injury in the head region having been
caused by appellant Jagir Singh of Purana Pind, that
when Tarlok Singh deceased was almost de~d or near
death, his dead body was placed on t~e mare .m fyont of
appellant Dyal Singh of Dalla, and six cull?nts, including the two appellants, then left the threshmg floor towards the nearby canal minor, and that at a distance of
about one mile from the village on the bank of the canal
minor the body of Tarlok Singh deceased was thrown
on the ground, the head was cut off, and ';Vhile aP.pellant
Dyal Singh of Dalla and another culprit earned the
head on the mare, the remaining four culprits accompanied them, and thus all the six culprits, including the two
appellants, escaped. So the six culprits, including the two
appellants came together armed, committed the murder
of Tarlok Singh deceased, were together when his head
was cut off and then departed together with the head of
Tarlok Singh deceased being carried by appeμant J?yal
Singh of Dalla and another on a mare. It 1s obvious
that what was done by all the six persons, including the
two appellants, was done in furtherance of their common
intention to murder Tarlok Singh deceased, which common intention was carried out with determination and it
is a case of gruesome murder. It is a clear case to which
sec.
34 applied ...... Taking into consideration the
manner and method of murder of Tarlok Singh deceased
by the appellants and their four companions as a whole
from start to the end, the appellants, about whose identity there is no manner of doubt whatsoever, cannot escape the consequences of the act of all the six persons
merely because in the case of three of those who have
been acquitted the learned Judge has not been satisfied as
to their identity and the fourth he has acquitted on a
consideration that as no corroboration is available as to
him of the witnesses he may be given the benefit of doubt.
The matter might have been different if the learned Judge
had disbelieved the witnesses with regard to those four
persons, but this he has not done."
The charge against the six accused including the two appellants
was that they were members of an unlawful assembly whose common object was to commit the murder of Tarlok Singh deceased
and that- they in prosecution of this common object committed the
murder. The materials on the record show clearly that the murder
was committed by six culprits including the two appellants in furtherance of the common intention of all. ifl the circumstances,
though the appellants were charged of an offence under ss. 302/
149, they could be convicted under ss. 302/34. No prejudice was
LSSup. Cl/67-4
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1967] 3 S.C.R,
caused to the appellants by the alteration of the charge from an
offence under ss. 302/ 149 to one under s. 302/34.
The contention of the appellants is that in a case where six
named accused persons, A, B, C, D, E and F are charged under
s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing the
murder of G and the evidence is directed to establish that the
said six persons have taken part in the murder and it is not known
who gave the fatal olow, on the acquittal of C, D, E and F the
remaining two accused A and B cannot be convicted of the offence
under s. 302 read with s. 34. We are unable to agree with this
contention. As it is not known that A or B gave the fatal blow
they cannot be convicted under s. 302. Nor is it possible to find
that A and B together with C, D, E and F jointly committed the
murder. Since C, D, E and F have been acquitted of the charge
they could not have participated iD the murder. Unless the court
can find that other unidentified assailants together with A and B
took f)art in the murder, A and B must be acquitted of the offence
under s. 302 read with s. 34. But if the court can, on a proper
appraisal of the evidence find that there were six assailants, the
witnesses were mistaken as to the identity of C, D, E and F, and
four unknown culprits together with A and B took part in the
murder in furtherance of the common intention of all, the court
can convict A and B of the offence under s. 302 read with s. 34.
Though it is not known who gave the fatal blow, each of the
assailants including A and B is responsibl~ for the murder as if it
was committed by him alone.
In Bharwad Mepa Dana and another v. State of Bombay(')
12 named persons including the two appellants were charged with
offences under s. 302 read with ss. 149 and 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. The Sessions Judge acquitted seven of the accused but convicted five under s. 302 read -with s: 149 and s. 302 read with
s. 34. On appeal, the High Court acquitted one of the five convicted persons but maintained the conviction and sentence of the
appellants and the two others. The High Court held that there
were ten to thirteen persons in the unlawful assembly though the
identity of all the persons except four had not been established, all
these persons had the common object and the common intention
of killing the victims and the killing was done in prosecution of
the common object of the unlawful as'embly and in furtherance
of the common intention of all. This Court affirmed the convictio!IS and sentences. It held that there was no difficulty in the
application of s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code as the number of
the convicted persons was four and there was a clear finding that
they shared the common intention with some others whose identity was not established. Even if it was not known which parti-
(1)(196012 S.C.R. 172
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
G
-
H
.JAGIA SINGH v. STATE (Bachawat, ],)
261
cular person or persons gave the fatal blows, once it was found
that the murders were committed in furtherance of the common
intention of all, each one of all such persons was liable as though
the murders had been committed by him alone.
Section 34 is
intended to meet a case where members of a party acted in furtherance of the common intention of all but it was difficult to prove
exactly the part played by each of them. The principle which the
section embodies is the participation in some action with the
intention of committing a crime; once such participation is established, s. 34 is at once attracted.
The case of Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay(') is
distinguishable.
There the appellant was charged under s. 302
read with s. 34 with four named persons. The four others were
acquitted. This Court held that the appellant alone could not be
convicted of the offence under s. 302 read with s. 34. On the
facts of that case, it was not possible to reach a conclusion that
the appellant shared a common intention with other unknown person or persons. The case of KriJhna Govind Patil v. State of
Maharashtra( 2) is also distinguishable. There, four accused persons were charged under s. 302 read with s. 34. The High Court
acquitted accused l, 3 and 4 on the ground that it was doubtful
whether any one of them participated in the commission of the
offence and yet convicted accused 2 on the ground that one or
more of them might have participated in the offence. The finding
recorded by the High Court was legally impossible. Having found
that accused 1, 3 and 4 did not take part in the offence, the High
Court could not find that one or more of them might have participated in the offence with accused 2.
There was not a single
observation in the judgment of the High Court to indicate that any
person or persons other than the named accused participated in
the offence. In there circumstances, this Court set aside the conviction of accused 2.
In the present case, the Courts below have recorded the clear
finding that accused 1 and 5 participated in the offence with four
ot?er unknown culprits. Though six named persons were charged
with the offence, there was a mistake in the identity of three of the
accused and with regard to another accused, the benefit of doubt
was given as no independent corroboration was available. But it
admits of no doubt that Tarlok Singh was attacked and brutally
murdered on April 27, 1965 by six culprits.
Accused 1 and 5
were two of the six culprits who participate<il in the attack. The
~urder was committed by six culprits including accused 1 and 5
m furtherance of the common intention of all. Accused 1 and 5
~bar~ the common intention with the four other culpl'its whose
identity has not been established. Though it is not known which
C» A.l.R. !956 S.C. SI.
(2) [196411 S.C.R. 678.
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1967] 3 S.C.R.
particular person or persons gave the fatal blow it is clear that the
murder was committed by six culprits including accused 1 and 5
in furtherance of the common intention of all and each of them is
liable for the murder as though it had been committed by him
alone.
Accused 1 and 5 were rightly convicted of the offence under
s. 302 read with s. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The murder was
ruthless and cold-blooded. There are no extenuating circumstances.
They were rightly sentenced to death. They were also rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under s. 201 read with s. 34
of the Indian Penal Code.
The appeal is dismissed.
Y.P.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c