LAWS(SC)-1971-9-8

CHANDRIKA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

Decided On September 07, 1971
CHANDRIKA PRASAD SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The five appellants in this appeal by special leave were tried along with ten others in the court of the Sessions Judge, Mirzapur for various offences. Chandrika Prasad Singh, appellant No. 1 in this Court, was charged under Section 302, I. P. C. for committing the murder of one Ram Sajjan Singh. He was also charged, along with the remaining co-accused, under Sections 302/149, I. P. C. for the same murder. All the accused were further charged under Section 379, I. P. C. All the five appellants, along with some others out of the accused persons, were in addition charged under Section 148, I. P. C. Seven accused persons none of whom is before us, were separately charged under Section 147, I. P. C. Appellant Raj Nandan Singh, Bilat Singh, Ram Binod Singh were separately charged under Section 324, I. P. C. for voluntarily causing simple hurt to Shri Sambhu Prasad Singh. The trial court convicted Chandrika Prasad Singh under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for the life because the murder was not considered to be a premeditated one. While dealing with the charge under Section 302/149, I. P. C. the trial court felt that the five appellants, along with Ram Narian Singh, who were members of an unlawful assembly knew, that at least hurt was likely to be caused in the rioting in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly. They were, therefore, convicting under Sections 302/149, I. P. C. instead of under Sections 302/149 and sentenced to five year's rigorous imprisonment each. Nine accused out of the 15 were given benefit of doubt and acquitted.

(2.) On appeal to the High Court by the six convicted persons Ram Narain Singh was also given benefit of doubt by that Court. He was, therefore, acquitted. The appeal on behalf of the present five appellants was dismissed. In this Court the main argument addressed on behalf of the appellants was that Chandrika Pradad Singh was not present at the spot and with respect to the other appellants the material on the record did not show any overt act on their part with the result that they were also entitled to benefit of doubt and, therefore, to acquittal.

(3.) The High Court dealt with the argument on the plea of Chandrika Prasad Singh's alibi in the following manner: