Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from the murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh on 13 January 1983 at Ketat, Palamau, Bihar. The appellants, Prem Kumar Singh alias Prem Singh and Ramesh Singh, were Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Sessions Trial No. 219 of 1983 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau. They, along with nine other accused including Mundrika Singh, faced trial for the murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and attempt to murder two co-passengers. The prosecution alleged that after a court hearing in Daltonganj, Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and others boarded a bus of Santosh Transport Company, and when it stopped at Ketat, a car and a jeep stopped in front, and the accused armed with rifles entered the bus and fired at Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh, killing him instantaneously and injuring PWs 5 and 6. The defence denied the charges, claiming false implication due to enmity and raising alibi for some accused. The Sessions Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC for murder and Section 307 IPC for attempt to murder, and Accused No. 6 under Section 302/34 IPC, sentencing all to life imprisonment; the other accused were acquitted. On appeal, the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, by judgment dated 8 September 1989, acquitted Accused No. 6 (Mundrika Singh) and set aside the conviction of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 307 IPC, but confirmed their conviction under Section 302 IPC. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court heard arguments from senior counsel for both sides, but the available text ends before the Court's analysis and final decision. The key issues included whether the evidence established the guilt of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for murder, whether common intention under Section 34 IPC was proved against Accused No. 6, and whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC was sustainable. The procedural history shows that the High Court differentiated the case of Accused No. 6 from the other two, finding the evidence against him doubtful. The Supreme Court's final holding is not available in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The Sessions Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 302 IPC for the murder of Tarkeshwar Prasad Singh and the High Court affirmed this conviction. The Sessions Court held that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 intentionally caused death by firing rifles inside the bus, while the High Court found the evidence sufficient for conviction under Section 302 despite acquitting co-accused Mundrika Singh. Held that the conviction for murder was justified on the evidence. (Paras 1-2) B) Criminal Law - Attempt to Murder - Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The Sessions Court convicted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 under Section 307 IPC for causing rifle injuries to PWs 5 and 6, but the High Court set aside this conviction. Held that the conviction under Section 307 was not sustainable. (Para 1) C) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Accused No. 6 Mundrika Singh was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302/34 IPC, but the High Court acquitted him because his case was doubtful and similar to the other accused who were acquitted. Held that common intention was not proved beyond reasonable doubt for Accused No. 6. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable on the evidence; whether the High Court erred in acquitting co-accused Mundrika Singh while confirming the conviction of the appellants; whether the conviction under Section 307 IPC was liable to be set aside.
Law Points
- Murder
- Common Intention
- Attempt to Murder
- Appreciation of Evidence
- Alibi
- Enmity
- Identification of Accused
