KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Ramhans, and six other persons were alleged to have committed the murder of Gabde and to have attempted to murder Ramchandra. The deceased and Ramchandra are said to have belonged to one part while the alleged assailants belonged to another, and between these two parties there had been great enmity for some time past. It was said that about midnight of November 18, 1959, while the deceased and Ramchandra and certain other persons were sleeping on a Tiwaria (terrace), the assailants entered the place and Ramhans shot Gabde dead with a gun and fired two shots at Ramchandra with intent to kill him but only succeeded in injuring him and that all this time the appellant was standing there armed with a gun and the other persons were also then armed variously and that all had entered the place with the common intention of committing the offences.

(2.) Ramhans had absconded and so the appellant and the other six alleged assailants were put up for trial for offences under Ss. 302 and 307 read with Ss. 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code for the murder of Gabde and the attempt to murder Ramchandra. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant of these offences but acquitted the other six persons tried along with him, giving them the benefit of doubt. The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. After the conviction of the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge but before his appeal could be heard, Ramhans had been arrested, put up for trial on the same charges and acquitted.

(3.) Before the High Court the appellant contended that Ramhans having been acquitted the appellant could not be held constructively liable for the offences with the aid of S. 149 of the Code. The High Court rejected this contention relying upon the judgments of this Court in Marachalil Pakku vs. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC 648, Bimbadhar Prashan vs. State of Orissa, (S) AIR 1956 SC 469 and Sunder Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1962 SC 1211. The following observation appears in the judgment of the High Court: