BAITAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Baital Singh, Bhagwan Singh and Jangjit Singh are real brothers. Ram Gopal, Ram Charan and Shoo Charan are the sons of Baital Singh. Om Prakash is the son of Bhagwan Singh. Sri Lal deceased was the son of Jangjit Singh. Baital Singh was not having good relations with his brothers Bhagwan Singh and Jangiit Singh.

(2.) Baital Singh, his three sons, Ram Gopal, Ram Charan and Sheo Charan along with Bidha and Shankar were tried for the murder of Sri Lal son of Jangjit Singh. They were acquitted by the trial Court. On appeal by the State of U.P. the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court and convicted Baital Singh, Ram Gopal, Ram Charan, Shoo Charan and Shanker under S. 302 road with S. 149, IPC and were sentenced to life imprisonment. They were also convicted under S. 324 read with S. 149, IPC and S. 148, IPC The acquittal of Bidha by the trial Court was upheld by the High Court. We have been informed that Ram Charan and Sheo Charan died during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court. This appeal has been filed by Baital Singh and his son Ram Gopal.

(3.) As a result of acquittal of Baital Singh we alter the conviction of the remaining accused from S. 302 read with S. 149 to S. 302 read with S. 34 of the IPC. It is true that there was no charge under S. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code but the facts of the case are such that the accused could have been charged alternatively either under S. 302 read with S. 149 or under S.302 read with S. 34. In this case according to the prosecution story all the accused came out of the house of Baital Singh and attacked Sri Lal. Ram Gopal and Ram Charan were armed with spears whereas Bidha, Baital Singh and Shoo Charan were armed with lathis. In the circumstances of the case no prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused whose appeal is being dismissed. This Court in Lachman Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 839 : (AIR 1952 SC 167) and Karnail Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 904 : (AIR 1954 SC 204) has held that the conviction under S. 149 can be substituted by S. 34 keeping in view the facts of the case.