- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Amar Singh v. State Of Haryana .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 4 September 1969, around 5 p.m., an altercation in Village Sabarwas culminated in the death of Mst. Indro. According to the prosecution, Kurra and Bhallu first assaulted Thandu Ram with lathis. The appellant, Amar Singh, armed with a jaili, and Hari Singh, armed with Ram Sarup’s gun, instructed Kurra and Bhallu to drag Thandu Ram toward them. When Indro, Thandu Ram’s daughter, arrived, Hari Singh—on the appellant’s exhortation—fired a shot that fatally struck her. A second shot was averted when Mool Chand wrested the gun away. The assailants then dispersed.
Thandu Ram lodged the First Information Report at 2 a.m. on 5 September 1969. The Sub-Inspector visited the scene at 5 a.m., prepared an inquest report, and seized the gun and empty cartridge. The accused were arrested on 12 September 1969 and charged.
The Sessions Judge, Hissar, convicted the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana affirmed the conviction. The present appeal before the Supreme Court was by special leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was legally sustainable when the charge framed was under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC.
- Whether reliance on the testimony of witnesses related or friendly to the deceased, in the absence of independent neighbours, vitiated the conviction.
- Whether the appellant shared a common intention with Hari Singh to commit the murder of Thandu Ram, thereby attracting liability under Section 34.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- All material eyewitnesses (PWs 3, 4, and 5) were related to or interested in Thandu Ram; disinterested neighbours were not examined, undermining the reliability of the prosecution case.
- Because the charge was framed under Section 302/149, conviction under Section 302/34 was impermissible and prejudicial.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Karnail Singh and Another v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 904; AIR 1954 SC 204 | Substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 may be a “formal matter” if the evidence required for both is the same and no prejudice is caused to the accused. | The Court relied on this decision to hold that, given identical facts and evidence, convicting the appellant under Section 34 despite an original charge under Section 149 caused no prejudice and was legally valid. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court noted that both the trial court and the High Court found the testimonies of PWs 3, 4, and 5 trustworthy. The mere absence of independent neighbours did not render their evidence unreliable.
Addressing the charge-substitution argument, the Court invoked the ruling in Karnail Singh, emphasizing that if the facts and evidence necessary to prove liability under Sections 149 and 34 are identical, replacing one section with the other does not prejudice the accused. The Court observed that the appellant not only exhorted Hari Singh to shoot but also pursued the victim and attempted to attack Mool Chand with a jaili, demonstrating a shared intention to murder Thandu Ram.
Because the appellant’s conduct evidenced common intention, the Court held that Section 34 applied. Consequently, the conviction under Section 302/34 was procedurally sound and substantively justified.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Dismissed—Conviction and life-sentence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC affirmed.
The immediate effect is that the appellant continues to serve a life sentence. The decision reaffirms that a court may sustain a conviction under Section 34 even when the initial charge was under Section 149, provided the facts and evidence overlap and no prejudice is shown. No new legal precedent was created, but the judgment consolidates existing jurisprudence on charge substitution and common intention.
K.K Mathew, J.— This is an appeal, by special leave, against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana confirming the conviction of the appellant of an offence under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the IPC and imposing the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence by the Sessions Judge, Hissar.
2. The prosecution case was as follows. On September 4, 1969, at about 5 p.m Thandu Ram of village Sabarwas was going out of his house and when he reached near the nauhra of Gopal, he saw Girdhari Hirab and asked him to tell as to when his turn of water would commence. Girdhari replied that he would tell about that shortly and went towards his house. Bhallu and Kurra, having lathis with them came from the back side of Thandu Ram and gave one lathi blow each to him (Thandu Ram). They also tried to drag Thandu Ram but Mool Chand (P. W. 4) came there and saved him. At that time, the appellant and Hari Singh were sitting on the chabutra in front of their house along with Ram Sarup. The appellant was armed with jaili and Hari Singh with a gun which belonged to Ram Sarup. The appellant and Hari Singh shouted to Bhallu and Kurra to drag Thandu Ram to that place. Kurra and Bhallu dragged Thandu Ram for 2/3 karams. At that time Biru and Bhana reached there. Mool Chand, Biru and Bhana intervened and prevented Kurra and Bhallu from dragging Thandu Ram further. The appellant and Hari Singh, followed by Ram Sarup, came towards Thandu Ram and when they were at a distance of 5/6 karams, the appellant exhorted Hari Singh to shoot at Thandu Ram. Hari Singh thereupon fired at Thandu Ram but by that time Thandu Ram's daughter Mst. Indro came there and the shot hit her. Mst. Indro, on receipt of the shot fell down. The appellant again exhorted Hari Singh to fire at Thandu Ram because the first shot did not hit Thandu Ram and when Hari Singh tried to reload the gun, Mool Chand snatched the gun from him. The appellant aimed his Caili towards Mool Chand but he warded it off by the gun in his hands which was broken as a result of the blow. Ram Sarup tried to snatch the gun from Mool Chand but in the meantime, Ram Chander, son of Thandu Ram came there and gave a lathi blow on the head of Ram Sarup. The appellant, Hari Singh, Ram Sarup, Kurra and Bhallu then went towards the house of appellant. Thandu Ram and others brought Mst. Indro to the house. She was alive at that time. The injuries of Indro were bandaged. No arrangement for the conveyance to take her to the hospital could be made. Indro died at 7.30 p.m
3. After the death of Mst. Indro, Thandu Ram left for the police station and lodged the first information report at 2 a.m which was recorded by Rameshar Dass, SHO, P.S Bhuna. The Sub-Inspector accompanied by Thandu Ram came to the spot at 5 a.m He found the dead body of Mst Indro lying at the house of Thandu Ram. He prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Thandu Ram also produced the gun and the cartridge (empty) before the Sub-Inspector who took them into possession. Rameshar Dass, SI arrested the accused on September 12, 1969, from near the Village Kumharia, and after the usual investigation, the accused were challaned.
4. On the basis of the evidence of the witnesses, the trial court found that the following facts were established. Ram Chander (PW 10) is the son of Thandu Ram (PW 3) and Biru (PW 5) is the son of Jot Ram brother of Ram Lal who was the grandfather of Thandu, Mool Chand (PW 4) is the great-grandson of Dilsukh brother of Ram Lal and Jot Ram. About 1½ years prior to the date of the occurrence, Duli Chand and Risal Singh, sons of Thandu Ram who were in army service had purchased land in Village Sabarwas for Rs 35,000 and at the time of the purchase, the land was under the cultivating possession of Hunta father of Kurra accused, Duli Chand and Risal Singh had made an application for ejectment of Hunta in the revenue Court and this application was pending at the time of the occurrence. On August 26, 1969, the appellant, Hari Singh, Kurra and Bhallu along with Hunta and Chhelu father of Bhallu were challaned under Sections 107 and 150 CrPC and on the same day Thandu Ram, one Neki and three other persons were challaned under Sections 107 and 150, CrPC and these cases were pending at the time of the occurrence. Thandu Ram had filed a complaint against the appellant, Hari Singh, Kurra and his father Hunta and Bhallu and his father Chhelu for causing injuries to his son Duli Chand which was also pending. Duli Chand and Ram Chander, sons of Thandu Ram and others were also challaned for causing injuries to the appellant before the occurrence and that case was still pending.
5. These circumstances, according to the trial court, proved that there was enmity between Thandu Ram and the accused.
6. As regards the occurrence, the findings of the trial court were: Hari Singh and the appellant were sitting in front of their house when Kurra and Bhallu gave one lathi blow each to Thandu Ram. They shouted to them to drag Thandu Ram towards them and apparently, the intention of both of them was to give him further blows. Since Thandu Ram was not allowed to be dragged by Mool Chand, Biru and Bhana, both Amar Singh, the appellant and Hari Singh came followed by Ram Sarup in that direction. At that time Hari Singh was armed with a gun which belonged to Ram Sarup and the appellant with a Jaili. The appellant shouted to Hari Singh that he should fire at Thandu Ram. Hari Singh fired the gun which unluckily hit Indro who happened to come there on hearing the shout. The appellant did not stop there. He again incited Hari Singh to make another shot at Thandu Ram. But before Hari Singh could shoot, the gun was snatched away from the hand of Ram Singh by Mool Chand. Then the appellant aimed his Jaili towards Mool Chand but he warded it off by the gun which was broken as a result of the blow.
7. The High Court, in appeal, after discussing the evidence, confirmed these findings.
8. Counsel for the appellant contended that all the material witnesses examined in the case were either related to Thandu Ram or interested in him and the disinterested neighbours who had seen the occurrence were not examined. There is no evidence that any person other than PWs 3, 4 and 5 saw the occurrence. PWs. 3, 4 and 5 have been believed by the trial court as well as by the High Court. We see no force in the contention that because neighbours residing near the place of occurrence have not been examined therefore these witnesses should not have been believed.
9. In this connection it may be noted that Hari Singh filed a petition for leave to appeal to this Court. That was dismissed. It would be incongruous if the Court were to come to the conclusion that the occurrence did not take place as stated by the prosecution witnesses.
10. The acts of the appellant spoken to by PWs. 3, 4 and 5 would clearly show that he had common intention with Hari Singh to commit the murder of Thandu Ram with whom they were on inimical terms If this appellant had only shouted lalkar, probably it would have been difficult to sustain the conviction. But the part played by him in the incident as found by the High Court would clearly indicate that he was guilty of the offence under Section 302, read with Section 34.
11. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the charge against the appellant was under Section 302, read with Section 149 and therefore, his conviction under Section 302, read with Section 34 was illegal. We do not think that there is any substance in this contention.
12. In Karnail Singh and Another v. State of Punjab 1954 SCR 904, AIR 1954 SC 204, 1954 SCJ 269 Venkatarama Ayyar, J., speaking for the Court, held:
“... it is true that there is substantial difference between the two sections but they also to some extent overlap and it is a question to be determined on the facts of each case whether the charge under Section 149 overlaps the ground covered by Section 34. If the common object which is the subject-matter of the charge under Section 149 does not necessarily involve a common intention, then the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 might result in prejudice to the accused and ought not therefore be permitted. But if the facts to be proved and the evidence to be adduced with reference to the charge under Section 149 would be the same if the charge were under Section 34, then the failure to charge the accused under Section 34 could not result in any prejudice and in such cases the substitution of Section 34 for Section 149 must be held to be a formal matter. There is no such broad proposition of law that there can be no recourse to Section 34 when the charge is only under Section 149.
Whether such recourse can be had or not must depend on the facts of each case.”
13. The finding of the trial court as confirmed by the High Court would clearly show that the appellant had the common intention. The facts proved and the evidence adduced would have been the same if the appellant had been charged under Section 302, read with Section 34 and we do not see how the appellant was prejudiced.
14. We have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was right in its conclusion that, as the appellant had common intention with Hari Singh to murder Thandu Ram, there was no illegality in convicting him under Section 302, read with Section 34.
15. The appeal is dismissed.
Alert