# SHEORAM SINGH & ANR v. STATE OF U.P

- **Citation:** [1973] 1 S.C.R. 939
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1972-08-23
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, /.D. Dua, H. R. Khanna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sheoram-singh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-5746
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

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 convicted 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 prosecution 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· 944ACl
.
'
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 co

## Text

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 convicted 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 prosecution 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· 944ACl
.
'
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~orous imprisonment for a period of five year•
oo the second count and rigorous imprisonment for a period of
two vears on the third count. The remaining accused were convicted under section 307 read with section 149, and section 147
·Indian Penal Code, and each of them was sentenced to undergo
·ri~rous imorisonmen't for a period of five years on the first
oount and ri~orous imprisonment for a period of one year on
dle second count.
The sentences in the case of each of the
accused were ordered to run concurrently.. Arjun Singh, Sheo·
.ram Singh and Jumman thereafter applied to this Court under
.utic1e 136 of the Constirtution for special leave to appea1 against
the fud~ent of the High Court. This Court declined to grant:
leave to Ariun Sin~ and dismissed the application in so far u
it related to him.
Sheoram Sinm and Jumman were granted
leave "limited to the section under which they can be convicitod
including, the applicability qf section 34 and 1.49 Indian Penal
Code".
The prosecution case is. that Ar.iun Singh, J wnn1an, Ganga
0een and Sheo Prasad accused were inimical · towards RaUl
Dul~ Sindt· as be was takinr interest in a
magisterial
e11
qtdry relatin2 to tbe death in oolice cust?<fy of one J~
~~
had been severely beaten t4y ·the aforesaid accused
1n Siroa1
A
8
c
f)
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
SHEORAM SINGH V. u. P. STATE (Khanna, J.)
941
before his arrest by the police. On November 4, 1964 at about
4.30 p.m., it is stated, Ram Dularey Singh (PW 4) was sitting
in front of his house in village Chilaula. Rampal Singh (PWl)
~nd his cousin. Chandrapal Singh were sitting iJl the courtyard
1n front of therr house benearth a tree.
The h6uses of Rampal
Singh and Ram Dularey Singh are ·close to each other. The
seven accused then came there. Out of them, ArJun Singh and
Sheoram Singh were with guns, while the remaining accused
carried lathis. Arjun Singh then shouted to his companions to
kill Ram Dularey Sin~h. Ram DuJarey Singh raised alam1 and
rvahed towards the house of Rarnpal Singh a11d closed the door
from inside, Rampal Singh and Chandrapal Singh · tried
to
pacify the accused and asked them not to quarrel on that day
as it was ,a day· of Paraiva which' foJlows
Deepawali. The
accused then stood at a short distance from the house of Ram
Duiarey Sin~}}. Har Narain Singh, deceased, who was brother
of. Chandrapal Singh, was inside ~he bouse at that time. Har
D
Narain Singh along with Ram DuJarey Singh then went to ·the
eastern roof of the house. Bar Narain Singh too
asked lthe
accused to abstain from abusing Ram Dularey Singh, Arjun
E
F
Singh then asked Har Narain Singh 10 tun1 otit Ram Dulru;ey
Singh from his. house. When Har N arain Singh declined, Ar.iun
Singh shouted that it would be bad for
him . also.
On tb.e
instigation of the other accused, Ar.iun Singh then fired his gun
at Har N arain Singh.
Sheoram Singh immediately
th·~reafter
fired at Ram Dularey Singh. Both Har Narain Singh and Ram
Dularey Singh fell down on 1thc roof on receipt of gun shot
injurie-s. The accused then ran away. The occurrence, it is
stated, was witnessed by Rampal Singh ( PW 1 ) Raghunandan
Pandey (PW 2), Gajodhar Singh
(PW 6)
and Suraj
Bali
tPW 8~. Rampal Singh after getting ,the door of his house
opened went to the roof. Har Narain Singh was found to be lying
dead there~ while Ram Dularey Singh was groaning with pain.
Rampal Singh then went to police station· Kotwali at a distance
of six miJ~s from the place of occurrence and· lodged report at
8~40 p.m. Sub Inspector Sri Ram Bau Chauhan then came to the
p1ace of occurre~ce and took over the investigation of the case.-
G ·The Sub Inspector prepared tbe .inquest report relating to the
dead body of Har Narain Singh and took into possession various
articles.
Ram Dularey Singh was got examined from Dr. S. N.
Tandon at 12-15 a.m. on November 5, 1964. He was found
to have gun shot wounds on the front of the chest, abdomen,
right elbow, right foreann and. the ri~ht nalm. .Post mortem
H
examination on the dead body of Har Narain Sin~ was performed
l:1y l)r. B~ N. De at 3.30 p~m. on November 5, 1964. Gun shot
wounds ~
found in the chest cavity, left shoulder, lower left
arm and ri~ht arm on ·the body of Har Narain Singh. A number
942
SUPRE~l~ COURT REPORTS
. ,. ·.· (1973] l S.C.lt
..
.of ribs, were found rto have been fractured under the gun shot
"YVounds in the chest cavity. Death of Har Narain Singh, in th~
.opinion of the doctor, was due to shock fu!emorrhage.
_
.:\
B
At the trial the accused denied the·. prosecution allegation.
·The plea. of Ariun Singh and Sheoram Singh was · that on
.November 4,. 1964 Arjun Singh went at 2.00 or 2.45. p.in. to
railway station Nagarwara to see off his son Sheorrun Singh
accused, who had to go to Ferozepur on duty. Sheoram Singh
is emp1oyed in the army. Sheoram Singh's train .left the railway
station at 4.10 p.m. and Arjun Singh returned to 1iii house at
about sunset.
Accordin~ further to Arjun Singh, he was asked
by the police to come to the' police station· along with his gu~
and cartridges. · He was thereafter put under arrest. The plea c
of the remaining accused was denial simpliciter. .
The Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused because
:he was of the view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution
was of a partisan character. It was also held that the investi~
~ation of the case was tainted. On appeal the High Court considered the evidence of Rampal Singh (P\V 1), Ram .Dula.rey
· Singh (P\V 4) and Gajodbar Singh (PW 6) to be fre.~ fron1
blemish. The ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution was
accepted. The High Court, however, found the evidence regard-
· ing. the exhortation by. the other accused to Arjun Singh. to kill
Har Narain Sin~ and Ram Dularey Singh to be not very convincirte.. It was held- by the High Court that the death of Har
N arain Singh · took place as a result of firing by Arjun Sin_gh.
Arjun Singh was convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code~
D
E
He was also found to be guilty of the offences under section 307
read with section 149 and section 148 Indian Penal Code. Sheoram Singh, who was alleged to have.· injured Ram Dularey Singh.
PW by firing a shot at him, was convicted on that aecount under
F
section 307 Indian~ Penal Code. Sheoram Singh' was further
convic~d under section 302 read with section 149 Indian· Penal
Code in connection with the death of Har Narain Singh and also
under section 148 lndWn. Penal Code for the offence rioting With
deadly weapon. · Rega.r~ing the other accused, the High Court
was of the view that they were 1n1ilty under section 14 7 Indian
Penal Code for the offence of riotin_g while being members of
·:ln unlawful assembly. Their common object, in the opinion of
the High Court, was to kill Ram Dularey Singh. As such.
they were also found to be guilty of the offence under section 307
read with section 149 Indian Penal Code. It. was not the object
' {)f the unla-wful assembly.. in the opinion, of the High Court. to
cause the death of Har N arain Singh. The case under. section
302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code against
tiv~se
.:~ccuscd was l1eld to have not been proved.
G
li
..
1...-
,....
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
u
SHEORAM SINGH ~- U. P. STATE (Khall11-G1 J.)
943
Mr. Goyal on behalf of the appellants has not challenged
before us ~he conviction of J urn man appellant for the offences
under section 307 read with section 149 and section 14'7 Indian
Penal Code. Learned counsel has further not challenged the conviction of Sheoram Singh appellant for offences under ~ctions
307 and 148 Indian Penal Code. The only contention which has
been advanced hy Mr. Goyal before us is that the conviction of
Sheoram Singh appellant for the offence under section 302 read
with section 149 Indian Penal Code is not well foundt.!d. There
is, in our opinion, considerable force in this contention. It would
appear from the resume of facts given above that the common
obiect of the unlawful assembly, of which Sheoram Singh and
other accused weJ;e members, was to cause the death of Ram
Dularey Singh. None of them had any enmity with Har Narain
Singh or any motive to kill him. Har Narain Singh, no doubt
was killed as a result of the shot fired by Ar.iun Sinr,h, but there
is nothing on the record to show that Arjun Singh fired the shot
at Har Narain Singh in proseeution of the common object of ,
the unlawful assembly. The High Court has acquitted the
accused, other than Arjun Singh and Sheoram Singh, for the
offenre under section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal
Code on the ground that the murder of Har Narain Singh was
not !f.be initial object of the unlawful assembly and the firing
at him was the result of develOpments which could not have been
anticipated. If the other five accused were acquitted and not
found guilty of the offenre under section 302 read with section
1 49 Indian Penal Code in connection with the death of Har
N arain Sin~, it is not clear as to how the conviction of Shooram Singh for the said offence could be sustained. The reasons
which led to the acquittal of the other five accused for the offence
under section 302 read with section 149 Indian Penal Code held
equally good for the acquittal for that offence of Sheoram SiTigh.
Mr. Uniyal on behalf of the State has argued that even if the
conviction of Sheoram Singh for the offence under section 302
read with section 149 Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained,
he is guilty of the offence under section 302 read with section
34 Indian Penal Code because the circumstances of the case
show that Ariun Singh fired the shot at Har N arain Singh in
furtherance of the common intention of Arjun Singh and Sheoram
Singh. This submission, in our opinion, is not well founded.
There is nothing to show that there was any exhortation by
Shooram Singh to Ar1un Singh to fire at Har Narain
~ingb.
Indeed, the -High Court has not accepted the evidence of exhortation to Ariun Singh by any of the other accused before
Arjun Singh ·fired at Har Narain S~gh .. Th~ prosecution h,as,
no doubt, led evidence to show that Arjun Smgh before firing
the shot at Har N arain. Singh told him that if he did not !urn
944
Sl)PREME, COURT REPORTS
[1973] 1 S.C.R.
out Ram Dularey Singh frQm his house, it would be bad for
him (IJ.ar Narain Singh) also. These words, undoubtedly, indicate· the attitude of Ar.iun Singh and show that he was not willing
to spare Har Narain Singh if the Jatter was not prepared to turn
out from his bouse Ram Dularey Singh. It is, however, difficult
to infer from that exclamation of A rju n Singh that Sheoram
shared the intention of Arjun Singh and that the shot was fired by
Arjun Singh at Har Narain Singh in furtherance of the common
intention of "Arjun Singh and Shooram Singh. There is, indeed.
nothing on the re<:on:l to jnd.icate tlmt She9ra1n Singh in any
way encoutagcd his father Ar,iun Singh to kill Hnr NL\rain
Sin~b. Sheoram Singh, no doubt, fired a shot at Ram Dularey Singh
and (for tlaat he has been convicted under section 3d7 Indian
Penal Code, but it does not follow from that tha't the shot at
Har Narain Singh by Ar.iun Singn was. also fired in filrtherance
of tbe inteo.tlon of Shcoram Sin~. It is undeniable that common
intention can develop during the course of an occurrence, but
there has to be cogent material on the basis of which the court can
arrive at that .findin~ and hold an accused vicariously liable for
the act o{ the other accused hv involving· section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
·As a result of the.· above, we ac.;cpt the appeal of Sheoram
Sin$ to the extent of setting aside h1s conviction and sentence
for !the offence under section 302 rcaJ with section 149 Indian
Penal. Code. In other respects the nppcnl of Sheoram Singh· is
dismissed. The appeal regarding Jumman has not bP~n pressed
and is dismissed.
V.P.S.
Appeal dismissed
A
B
c.
D