Parshuram Singh Vs. State of Bihar

Parshuram Singh vs State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jan 16, 2002

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/649664

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/649664
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: K.T. Thomas and; S.N. Phukan, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 16, 2002
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal - Murder - Common intention - Conviction of four persons under Section 302 read with 149 of IPC - For convicting a person merely on the basis of the oral statement made at the spot at the court must have other surrounding circumstances to ensure the confidence that he made such exhortation- Accused A1 alleg...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34 and 302; Criminal Law

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Parshuram Singh

Respondent

State of Bihar

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34 and 302; Criminal Law
Reported In: 2002(50)BLJR697; JT2002(1)SC407; RLW2002(3)SC359; (2002)8SCC16

Excerpt

criminal - murder - common intention - conviction of four persons under section 302 read with 149 of ipc - for convicting a person merely on the basis of the oral statement made at the spot at the court must have other surrounding circumstances to ensure the confidence that he made such exhortation- accused a1 alleged to have made an oral exhortation, had a lathi with him and accused a4 had a pistol and threatened the other persons to reach the scene- common intention to murder cannot be attributed as neither of them had inflicted any injury on deceased - benefit of doubt extended. - - .....section 302 read with section 149(besides some other lesser offences) a divisionbench of the high court of patna hadacquitted six out of the 11 parsons. in regardto the present four appellants the highcourt convicted them for the offence undersection 302 read with section 34 of the ipc although the high court confirmed theconviction of the offences under section147 and 148 etc. of the ipc also. theseappeals are filed by special leave by thosefour persons.2. the four persons were arrayed in thetrial court as a1-rameshwar singh, a2-anilkumar singh, a3-devender singh and a4-parashuramsingh.3. according to the prosecution version themotive for the incident was a dispute overa timber tree which stood almost on theboundary of the lands belonging to the familyof a3-devender singh and that of thedeceased. perhaps many skirmishes wouldhave taken place on account of the saiddispute. on 17.11.87 around 2.00 p.m. allthe 11 persons. variously armed, went tothe field of one mangal kumar as the deceasedtribuna singh was then found atthat spot. according to the prosecution versional-rameshwar singh made an oralexhortation and a2-anil kumar singh inflictedcut blows with a farsa and then thedeceased fell down. at that time a3-devendersingh inflicted three or four cutinjuries on the deceased and one of themwas on the neck. a4-parshuram singh hada pistol with which he hurled threats at theincoming persons. the deceased on sustaininginjuries died at the spot itself.4. five witnesses were examined to speakto the occurrence as eye-witnesses. weare told that all the said vive witnesses haveimplicated the above four appellants in themanner in which the prosecution has narratedthe case. it is too late in the day fordisbelieving the testimony of the five witnesses,particularly when the trial court andthe high court have placed reliance on theirtestimony.5. nonetheless, we have to evaluate therole played by a1-rameshwar singh anda4-parashuram singh in order to ascertainwhether they.....

Full Judgment

1. There were 11 accused before the sessionscourt who were charge-sheeted forthe murder of one Tribuna Singh on theallegation that those 11 persons formedthemselves into an unlawful assembly withthe object to murder him. Although the sessionscourt convicted all the 11 personsunder Section 302 read with Section 149(besides some other lesser offences) a divisionbench of the High Court of Patna hadacquitted six out of the 11 parsons. In regardto the present four appellants the HighCourt convicted them for the offence underSection 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC although the High Court confirmed theconviction of the offences under Section147 and 148 etc. of the IPC also. Theseappeals are filed by special leave by thosefour persons.

2. The four persons were arrayed in thetrial court as A1-Rameshwar Singh, A2-AnilKumar Singh, A3-Devender Singh and A4-ParashuramSingh.

3. According to the prosecution version themotive for the incident was a dispute overa timber tree which stood almost on theboundary of the lands belonging to the familyof A3-Devender Singh and that of thedeceased. Perhaps many skirmishes wouldhave taken place on account of the saiddispute. On 17.11.87 around 2.00 p.m. allthe 11 persons. variously armed, went tothe field of one Mangal Kumar as the deceasedTribuna Singh was then found atthat spot. According to the prosecution versionAl-Rameshwar Singh made an oralexhortation and A2-Anil Kumar Singh inflictedcut blows with a Farsa and then thedeceased fell down. At that time A3-DevenderSingh inflicted three or four cutinjuries on the deceased and one of themwas on the neck. A4-Parshuram Singh hada pistol with which he hurled threats at theincoming persons. The deceased on sustaininginjuries died at the spot itself.

4. Five witnesses were examined to speakto the occurrence as eye-witnesses. Weare told that all the said vive witnesses haveimplicated the above four appellants in themanner in which the prosecution has narratedthe case. It is too late in the day fordisbelieving the testimony of the five witnesses,particularly when the trial court andthe High Court have placed reliance on theirtestimony.

5. Nonetheless, we have to evaluate therole played by A1-Rameshwar Singh andA4-Parashuram Singh in order to ascertainwhether they would have entertained acommon intention to murder the deceased.Neither of them had inflicted any injury onthe deceased. A1-Rameshwar Singh hada Lathi with him and inspite of that he didnot choose to give even a minor assault onthe deceased. All that is said against himis he ordered the killing the deceased. Itis not show that A1-had any particularreason for taking up the leadership of thegang. On the other hand the genesis of thequarrel was the dispute regarding the timbertree which stood on the boundary ofthe lands belonging to A3 on the one sideand the deceased on the other. For convictinga person merely on the basis of theoral statement made at the spot the Courtmust have other surrounding circumstancesto ensure the confidence that hemade such an exhortation. If A1 had reallyany intention to participate in the occurrence,much less any common intention tomurder the deceased, it is difficult for us toconceive as to why he did not use theweapon which was handy with him then.

6. The role attributed to A4-ParashuramSingh is that he had a pistol with him andhe threatened the other persons whoreached the scene. Here also, if A4-ParshuramSingh had the common intentionto murder the deceased it is highly improbablethat he would have refrained fromusing the inherently lethal weapon like thepistol which was in his possession. Hewould have threatened others from cominginto the fray perhaps as a measureadopted by him to save them from receivinginjuries.

7. For the aforesaid reasons we have difficultyto confirm the finding that A1-RameshwarSingh and A4-ParmeshwarSingh really entertained common intentionwith the other assailants to murder the deceased.The benefit of the reasonabledoubt emanating from the broad featuresof the case must be extended to those twoaccused.

8. In the result, we set aside the convictionand sentence passed on A1-RameshwarSingh and A4-Parashuram Singh who arethe appellants before us. We acquit themand direct them to be set at liberty forthwithunless they are required in any othercase. We do not interfere with the convictionand sentence passed on the appellantsA2-Anil Kumar Singh A3-DevenderSingh.

9. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 2002 Same Parties Parshuram Singh vs State of Bihar Same Subject Criminal Same Judge K.T. Thomas and; S.N. Phukan, JJ. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 34 and 302; Criminal...

Criminal