Back
1958 Supreme(All) 109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B. R. James and A. P. Srivastava, JJ.
CHARAN SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 714 Of 1958
Decided On : 07/02/1958
D.P.UMYAL, P.C.Chaturvedi
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 302, 304, 149, 148, 147, 324, 323] - Murder - Common object - Liability of members of unlawful assembly - Ingredients of offence under Section 302, 304, 149, 148, 147, 324, 323 of I.P.C. - Appreciation of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted of murder and other offences arising out of a dispute between two families. The dispute arose when the appellant Chhotey Singh accused Munshi, a member of the other family, of damaging his sweet potato crop with his pigs. Munshi denied the accusation, and an altercation ensued between the two men. Chhotey Singh then went to his relatives, the other appellants, and they all went to Munshi's house armed with spears and lathis. They demanded to know where Munshi was, and when his father and uncles refused to tell them, they started abusing them. Gulzari, Munshi's brother, objected to the abuse, and Charan Singh, one of the appellants, speared him to death. The other appellants then attacked Gulzari's father, uncles, and wife, causing them simple injuries.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Charan Singh was guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced him to death. The other four appellants were convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment. They were also convicted of rioting under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment each, and Chhotey Singh was also convicted of unlawful assembly under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment. The court further convicted the appellants of causing simple hurt under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced them to three years rigorous imprisonment each, and Chhotey Singh was also convicted of causing simple hurt under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.
Issues: 1. Whether Charan Singh was guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC? 2. Whether the other four appellants were guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC? 3. Whether the appellants were guilty of rioting under Section 148 IPC? 4. Whether Chhotey Singh was guilty of unlawful assembly under Section 147 IPC? 5. Whether the appellants were guilty of causing simple hurt under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC? 6. Whether Chhotey Singh was guilty of causing simple hurt under Section 323 IPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Charan Singh was guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC because he had the intention to cause Gulzari's death, as evidenced by the fact that he speared him with such force that the spear penetrated his abdomen and lacerated his large intestine and bladder. The court also held that Charan Singh knew that his act was likely to cause death, as the spear wound was a serious injury that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 2. The court held that the other four appellants were not guilty of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC because they did not have the common object of killing Gulzari. The court found that the common object of the unlawful assembly was only to chastise Munshi, and that the death of Gulzari was not caused in prosecution of that object. The court also held that the appellants did not know that Charan Singh was likely to kill Gulzari, as there was no evidence to suggest that they had incited him to do so or that they had reason to believe that he would use his spear in such a forceful manner. 3. The court held that the appellants were guilty of rioting under Section 148 IPC because they were members of an unlawful assembly that used force or violence in prosecution of the common object of chastising Munshi. The court found that the appellants had used their spears and lathis to attack Gulzari and his relatives, and that this violence was used in prosecution of the common object of chastising Munshi. 4. The court held that Chhotey Singh was guilty of unlawful assembly under Section 147 IPC because he was a member of an unlawful assembly that had the common object of chastising Munshi. 5. The court held that the appellants were guilty of causing simple hurt under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC because they caused simple injuries to Gulzari's father, uncles, and wife in prosecution of the common object of chastising Munshi. 6. The court held that Chhotey Singh was guilty of causing simple hurt under Section 323 IPC because he caused a simple injury to Gopal with his lathi.
Final Decision: The court upheld Charan Singh's conviction under Section 302 IPC but reduced his death sentence to life imprisonment. The court set aside the convictions and sentences of the other four appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC. The court also set aside the convictions and sentences of all the appellants under Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC, and under Section 148 or 147 IPC. Instead, the court convicted all the appellants under Section 143 IPC and sentenced them each to six months rigorous imprisonment. The court further convicted Bachchu Singh, Ram Singh alias Ramie, and Sheo Nath Singh under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them each to three years rigorous imprisonment, and convicted Chhotey Singh under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment. The court directed the imprisonment in each case to be concurrent.
B. R. JAMES, J.
( 1 ) THE appellants in these two appeals are Charan Singh, Bachchu Singh, Ram Singh alias ramlo, Sheo Nath Singh and Chhotey Singh, of whom Sheo Nath Singh and Chhotey Singh are the sons of Ramlo, while the other two are stated to be collaterals of the latter. They are Thakurs of village Udapur, which is four miles from police-station Kant in the District of Shahjahanpur. Charan Singh has been found guilty under Section 302. P. C. and sentenced to death, and the sessions Judge has made the usual reference for confirmation of his death sentence. The other four appellants have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149. P. C. and awarded life imprisonment each. The appellants have also beien found guilty under Section 324 read with Section 149. P. C. and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment each. In addition, Charan Singh, Bachchu Singh, Ramlo and Sheo Nath Singh have been awarded two years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 148. P. C. while Chhotey Singh has been sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 147. P. C. , the imprisonment in each case having been ordered to run concurrently.
( 2 ) NOW, in the same village there resided a Dhanuk -- (a low caste people who inter alia keep pigs) -- family consisting of three brothers, Gopal, Gulzari and Sanwal, out of whom Gopal and gulzari lived in the same house while Sanwal occupied am adjoining house. Laraiti is the wife, of Sanwal and Munshi their twenty-year old son. Copals wife is Chamel. Tt is imdeniabje that in the after-noon of the 30th September 1957 these persons (excepting Munshi) were the victims of violence. Medical evidence has proved their injuries to have been as follows:-- gulzari: A spear wound deep into the abdominal cavity penetrating the peritoneum and lacerating the large intestine and the bladder; due to the shock and haemorrhage resulting from this injury he died almost instantaneously. Gopal: A punctured wound on the front of the left shoulder, and an abraided bruise on the left arm. Sanwal:- A two inch deep punctured wound on the back and a small incised wound on tile back of a finger of the left hand. Sm. Chameli: A 2 1/4 inch superficial incised wound on the right side of the abdomen. Sm. Laraiti: A scalp-deep contused wound, 1 1/2-inch long, on the head. The injuries of the last four persons were simple, the punctured or incised wounds being caused by spears, and the rest by a blunt weapon like a lath.
( 3 ) THE case against the appellants may be outlined as follows. There was no previous enmity between the, parties. On the day of the occurrence earlier in the afternoon Sanwals son Munshi was grazing his pigs at a pond situate outside the village abad. The appellant Chhotey Singh, who is of the same age as Munshi, came up and taxed Munshi with causing damage to his sweet-potato field with his pigs. Munshi protested that his pigs had not caused any damage and that if any loss had been suffered it must be due to same other persons animals. Chhotey Singh thereupon abused him, and after an exchange of abuse the two young men grappled and gavo each other a few blows with their hands. Munshi extricated himself from the fray, ran home and told his father and uncles about the incident. His father rebuked him and asked him to go back to his grazing and make sure that his pigs did not stray into Chhotey singhs field. Alt the same time Chhotey Singh returned to his own home and apparently reported to his relatives the indignity of having been given blows by a Dhanuk. Half an hour later the three Dhanuk brothers were sitting at the entrance to their compound when the five appellants arrived in a body. Chhotey Singh carried a lathi while the other four were armed with spears. They demanded to know where Munshi was, to which Gulzari replied that munshi was not at home but had gone out. The appellants insisted that Munshi was inside the house, and flung abuse. Gulzari objected to their use of abusive language
