Case – Maina Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1976
Fact
The deceased Amar Singh and accused Maina Singh and his three sons Hardeep Singh, Jeet Singh and Puran Singh used to live in Ganganagar district of Rajasthan. It was alleged that the relations between Amar Singh and Maina Singh were strained, as Maina Singh suspected that Amar Singh was giving information about his smuggling activities.
Amar Singh and his son Ajeet Singh were having some construction work in his house and had engaged Isar Ram as a mason. It is alleged that at that time Maina Singh, and his three sons Hardeep Singh, Jeet Singh and Puran Singh came along with Narain Singh. Maina Singh was armed with a 12-bore gun, Puran Singh with a ‘takua’ and the other three with ‘gandasis’. Maina Singh gun shots hit Ajeet Singh on his legs, and he jumped into a dry water course which was nearby to take cover. Amar Singh ran towards the sugarcane field crying for help but was chased by the accused. Ajeet Singh thereupon ran away and ultimately went and lodged a report at Anoopgarh Police Station.
The five accused followed Amar Singh. Maina Singh fired his gun at Amar Singh, and he fell down. The other accused went near him and gave blows by gandasi, and Maina Singh gave a blow with the butt end of his gun. Amar Singh succumbed to his injuries on the spot, and the accused ran away.
Issue
Whether one person (Maina Singh) can be convicted under Section 34 or Section 149, in the circumstances when other accused (four accused in this case) had been acquitted, and also no direct or circumstantial evidence to show that the offence was committed by the appellant along with any other unnamed person?
Observation & Judgement:
- Supreme Court observed, the charge in the present case related to the commission of the offence of unlawful assembly by the appellant along with the other named four co- accused, and with no other person. The trial in fact went on that basis throughout. There was also no direct or circumstantial evidence to show that the offence was committed by the appellant along with any other unnamed person.
- So, when the other four co-accused have been given the benefit of doubt and have been acquitted, it would not be permissible to take the view that there must have been some other person along with the appellant Maina Singh in causing the injuries to the deceased. It was as such not permissible to invoke Section 149 or Section 34 IPC Maina Singh would accordingly be responsible for the offence, if any, which could be shown to have been committed by him without regard to the participation of others.
- Maina Singh was guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the deceased and his son by means of an instrument for shooting, and was guilty of an offence under Section 326.Conviction of Maina Singh under Section 302/34 IPC is altered to one under Section 326 IPC. He was liable only for his act. He was not liable for acts of other persons.
- It was not permissible for the High Court to invoke Section 149 or Section 34, IPC.
