Back
1958 Supreme(All) 229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. P. Srivastava and S. K. Verma, JJ.
HUKUM SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 1010 Of 1956
Decided On : 12/19/1958
P.C.Chaturvedi
In order to establish the offence of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove that the accused had the common intention to cause death in pursuance of their unlawful act, that they were armed with deadly weapons and prepared to use them to overcome any resistance offered to them, that they actually caused the death of the victim in order to accomplish their common purpose, that each of the accused knew that death was likely to be caused in pursuance of their common object, and that the victim died as a result of the concerted and simultaneous attack upon him by all the accused.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - COMMON INTENTION - SECTION 302 READ WITH SECTION 149, INDIAN PENAL CODE - CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER - SECTION 304 PART II, INDIAN PENAL CODE - DISTINCTION - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 106 - BURDEN OF PROOF - ACCUSED MUST PROVE CIRCUMSTANCES REDUCING OFFENCE FROM MURDER TO CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, along with one or two other persons, loaded their carts with sugarcane and proceeded to drive them through a number of fields with standing crops in them quite unlawfully. Ram Chandra armed himself with a Kulhari and the others armed themselves with lathis. They passed through a number of fields and reached the field of Harphool. When protest was made by Harphool, they attacked him simultaneously. Ram Chander with his kulhari and the others with their lathis inflicting as many as seven injuries on the person of Harphool. Harphool died as the result of the fracture of the skull bones and injuries to the brain.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants had decided upon the doing of an unlawful act, viz. to force their way through the fields including that of Harphool to the Gohar. They armed themselves fully prepared to meet any resistance that might be offered to them and to overcome the same by the use of their weapons and, if necessary, to cause death. They actually caused death in order to accomplish their purpose which was the common object of them all. Each one of them must have known that death was likely to be caused in pursuance of that common object. Harphool did not die as the result of an accidental isolated act of one of the appellants, but as a result of the concerted and the simultaneous attack upon him by all the appellants.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants had the common intention to cause death in pursuance of their unlawful act of forcing their way through the fields, including that of Harphool, to the Gohar? 2. Whether the appellants were armed with deadly weapons and prepared to use them to overcome any resistance offered to them? 3. Whether the appellants actually caused the death of Harphool in order to accomplish their common purpose? 4. Whether each of the appellants knew that death was likely to be caused in pursuance of their common object? 5. Whether Harphool died as a result of an accidental isolated act of one of the appellants or as a result of the concerted and simultaneous attack upon him by all the appellants?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants had the common intention to cause death in pursuance of their unlawful act of forcing their way through the fields, including that of Harphool, to the Gohar. The court also held that the appellants were armed with deadly weapons and prepared to use them to overcome any resistance offered to them. The court further held that the appellants actually caused the death of Harphool in order to accomplish their common purpose. The court also held that each of the appellants knew that death was likely to be caused in pursuance of their common object. Finally, the court held that Harphool died as a result of the concerted and simultaneous attack upon him by all the appellants.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the convictions and sentences of the appellants.
( 1 ) HUKUM Singh, Surajbhan, Sher Jang, Bhartu and Ram Chandra have filed this appeal against their conviction and the sentences awarded to them by the learned Sessions Judge of Saharanpur. All the five of them have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149. Indian Penal code, and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life. They all have also been convicted under section 323 read with Section 149, Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. Ram Chandra has been further convicted under Section 148, Indian penal Code, and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment whereas the remaining four appellants, namely Hukum Singh, Suraj Bhan, Sher Jang and Bhartu, have been convicted under section 147, Indian Penal Code, and have been sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment. The learned Sessions Judge has directed the sentences to run concurrently.
( 2 ) THE charge against the appellants was that they on 12-12-1954 at about 9 A. M. in the wheat and gram field of Harphool in village Kurali, police station Rampur, district Saharanpur, committed rioting and in pursuance of the common object of the assembly, which was to take their bullock-carts forcibly through a number of fields including the field of Harphool committed the murder of Harphool and caused simple injuries to Lal Singh, Tara and Peeru. Ram Chandra appellant had also been charged under Section 148, Indian Penal Code, for having been armed with a deadly weapon, namely kulhar. The other appellants were charged under Section 147, indian Penal Code as they are said to have been armed with lathis. The appellants are Raiputs and are inter-related.
( 3 ) IN order to understand the prosecution case it is necessary to give very briefly the topography of the place of occurrence. Surajbhan appellant had a sugar cane field in Sona Arjunpur measuring about ten bighas. To the east of the sugar cane field of Surajbhan there are a number of fields belonging to Sainis and, after about ten or eleven fields lies the field of Harphool (deceased ). On the extreme east adjoining this field there is a public thoroughfare which is described by the witnesses as a gohar. According to the evidence led by the prosecution, there were crops such as peas, sugar cane and gram in all these fields.
( 4 ) THE prosecution case was that on the date of the occurrence in the morning the six appellants and one Surta (who died before the trial commenced) cut a portion of their sugar cane, loaded the same in two bullock carts and drove them towards the east through the fields of the various sainis and reached the wheat and gram field of Harphool, the Settlement number of which is 360. Harphool protested against the conduct of the appellants on the ground that the crops in his field would be damaged by the carts. The accused, however, insisted on taking the carts through the field of Harphool. A verbal altercation ensued in the course of which the appellants launched an attack on Harphool. Lal Singh, a brother of Harphool and Tara a son of Harphool, happened to be smoking outside their cattle-shed to the south of the field of Harphool at a distance of about sixty paces. They heard the noise and saw Harphool being beaten. They also picked up their lathis and ran to the spot to the rescue of Harphool. Peeru also happened to be working in a field at a short distance and he also arrived there. Tara, Lal Singh and Peeru tried to save Harphool and they were also attacked by the appellants. Lal Singh and Tara wielded their lathis in self-defence and Peeru also picked a wooden piece, which happened to be lying there, and used the same in self-defence. Ram Chandra gave a kulhari blow to Harphool who fell down unconscious. A large number of villagers arrived and the fight ended. The prosecution allegation, further, was that the appellants also declared that as the Station Officer of police station Rampur (within the circle of which village Kurali lies) belonge
