Supreme Court of India
Parshuram Singh vs State Of Bihar on 16 January, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(50)BLJR697, JT2002(1)SC407, RLW2002(3)SC359, (2002)8SCC16, AIRONLINE 2002 SC 189, (2002) 1 BLJ 734, (2002) MAD LJ(CRI) 511, (2002) 44 ALL CRI C 551, (2003) 24 OCR 281, (2002) 1 PAT LJR 278, (2002) 3 RAJ LW 359, (2002) 2 EAST CRI C 19, 2002 (8) SCC 16, (2002) 1 CUR CRI R 196, (2002) 1 ALL CRI R 685, (2002) 1 JT 407, (2002) 2 SUPREME 234, 2003 SCC (CRI) 184, (2002) 2 JCR 494 (JHA), 2002 BLJR 1 697, (2002) 1 JT 407 (SC), (2005) 105 FACLR 938, 2005 (11) SCC 286, (2005) 2 LABLJ 1050, (2005) 2 SCT 456, (2005) 32 ALLINDCAS 659, (2005) 3 JT 565 (SC), (2005) 3 LAB LN 22, (2005) 3 SCALE 496, (2005) 3 SCJ 579, (2005) 3 SUPREME 157, (2005) 4 SERVLR 813, (2005) 5 ALL WC 4304, 2005 SCC (L&S) 876, 2005 UJ(SC) 2 856
Bench: K.T. Thomas, S.N. Phukan
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 theIPC 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.