/2022 INSC 0131/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.84 OF 2022
Omkar Singh                ..Appellant(S)
Versus
Jaiprakash Narain Singh & Anr.             ..Respondent(S)
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   15.03.2019   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.
304   of  1983  by   which   the   High   Court  has   allowed   the  said
appeal   preferred   by   respondent   No.1   herein   –   original
accused   No.2   and   has   acquitted   him   for   the   offences
punishable   under   Section   302   read   with   Section   34   of   the
1

IPC,   the   original   informant   –   son   of   the   deceased   has
preferred the present appeal.     
2. As per the case of the prosecution, one Omkar Singh son of
Parasnath   Singh   lodged   an   FIR   at   Police   Station   Karanda,
District   Gazipur   stating   that   due   to   the   enmity   going   on
between   his   family   members   with   Udaibhan   Singh   and   his
father   Jaiprakash   Narain   Singh   @   Lala   (original   accused
Nos.1   and   2)   his   father   has   been   killed.   As   per   the
allegation, on 21.04.1982, there was marriage of daughter of
one   Kailashu   Vishwakarma,   who   was   his   neighbour   where
he   along   with   his   Tau   ­   Vikrama   Singh   and   his   cousin
brother Indradeo Singh had gone. After taking meal at about
12 in the night, he along with his Tau and cousin had gone
on his pumping set for sleeping where his father Parasnath
was   lying   from   before.   He   and   his   cousin   Indradeo   Singh
had slept on one cot whereas his Tau had slept on another
cot.   There   was   a   lantern   burning   which   was   hanging   on   a
stick.   In   between   2:30­3:00   am   in   the   night,   accused
Udaibhan Singh came near his cot and pulled the bed­sheet
on which he and his cousin woke up and his Tau also woke
up.   At   that   moment   Jaiprakash   Narain   Singh   @   Lala   (A­2)
2

exhorted   and   stated   that   Paras   is   lying   here   come   quickly
and   shoot   him   on   which   Udaibhan   Singh   (A­1)   went   near
the   cot   of   his   father   Parasnath   and   shot   him   with   country
made pistol on his chest from a point­blank range and when
the   informant   and   the   witnesses   raised   alarm   then
Udaibhan Singh again reloaded his country made pistol and
threatened   them   on   account   of   which   they   kept   quiet.
Thereafter   both   the   accused   ran   away   towards   North.
During  the   course   of   investigation,   the   Investigating  Officer
(IO)   recorded   the   statements   of   the   concerned   witnesses
including   eye   witnesses   and   also   collected   the   relevant
evidences.   On   conclusion   of   the   investigation,   the   IO   filed
the   chargesheet   against   both   the   accused   for   the   offences
under Sections 302 read with Section 302/34 of the IPC. As
the   case   was   exclusively   triable   by   the   learned   Court   of
Sessions,   the   case   was   committed   to   the   sessions   court.
Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore both of them came
to   be   tried   by   the   learned   Sessions   Court   for   the   offences
punishable   under   Sections   302   and   302/34   of   the   IPC
respectively. 
3

3. In   order   to   bring   the   guilt   of   the   accused   the   prosecution
examined   PW­1   Omkar   Singh   –   informant   and   PW­2
Inderdeo   Singh   and   PW­4   Vikram   Singh   (all   eye   witnesses)
and   PW­3   Dr.   P.C.   Srivastava   who   conducted   the   post
mortem   of   the   deceased   and   PW­5   SI   Kamta   Singh.   On
closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, further
statements   of   the   accused   under   Section   313   Cr.PC   were
recorded.   That   thereafter   on   appreciation   of   the   entire
evidence on record and believing PW­1, PW­2 and PW­4 (eye
witnesses) the learned Trial Court convicted A­1 – Udaibhan
Singh  for  the  offences punishable  under  Section 302 of  the
IPC   and   A­2   –   Jaiprakash   Narain   Singh   @   Lala   for   the
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
of   the   IPC   and   sentenced   them   to   undergo   life
imprisonment. 
              
4. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   judgment   and
order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial
Court   convicting   the   accused   for   the   offences   punishable
under   Section   302   and   Section   302/34   of   the   IPC
respectively,   the   accused   preferred   an   appeal   before   the
High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High
4

Court  has  though   believed  the  eye  witnesses  –  PW­1,  PW­2
and   PW­4   so   far   as   the   A­1   –   Udaibhan   is   concerned   and
has confirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed
by   the   learned   Trial   Court   convicting   the   A­1   –   Udaibhan,
has acquitted A­2 – Jaiprakash Narain Singh @ Lala mainly
on   the   ground   that   the   three   prosecution   witnesses   had
given him role of exhortation only and no overt act has been
assigned   to   him   and   therefore   there   might   be   an
exaggeration   of   his   role   and   false   implication   by   the
witnesses in order to see that both the accused – father and
son are put behind the bars because of the property dispute
between the parties. 
5. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   acquitting
respondent No.1 herein ­ original accused No.2, the original
informant has preferred the present appeal. 
6. Shri D.P. Singh Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant has vehemently submitted that in the facts
and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the   High   Court   has
committed   a   grave   error   while   acquitting   respondent   No.1
herein – original accused No.2. 
5

6.1 It is vehemently submitted by learned counsel appearing on
behalf   of   the   appellant   that   as   such   respondent   No.1   was
named   in   the   FIR.   It   is   submitted   that   all   the   three   eye
witnesses – PW ­1, PW­2 & PW­4 named respondent No.1 –
accused   who   went   to   the   pumping   set   where   the   deceased
was   sleeping   and   that   respondent   No.1   with   a   common
intention   to   murder   the   deceased   accompanied   his   son   –
accused No.1 and on finding the deceased on a different cot
exhorted   his   son   to   kill   him   and   thereafter   accused   No.1
killed   the   deceased   with   fire   arm.   It   is   submitted   that
therefore   the   learned   Trial   Court   rightly   convicted
respondent No.1 – accused with aid of Section 34 of the IPC.
6.2 It is further submitted that even as per the finding recorded
by   the   High   Court   the   motive   has   been   established   and
proved   by   the   prosecution.   It   is   submitted   that
unfortunately the High Court has acquitted respondent No.1
–   accused   solely   on   the   ground   that   overt   act   assigned   to
respondent   No.1   –   accused   No.2   is   of   exhortation   only   and
therefore, his involvement appears to be doubtful.
6

6.3 It   is   submitted   that   the   said   finding/observation   is   on
surmises and conjectures and just contrary to the evidence
on record.  It  is submitted  that  the  presence of  the accused
has   been   established   and   proved   by   the   prosecution   by
examining PW­1, PW­2 and PW­4, who are the eye witnesses
and   that   their   evidence   has   been   believed   by   the   High
Court.   It   is   submitted   that   therefore   there   is   no   reason   to
doubt the presence of the accused – respondent No.1 herein
at the place of incident.
7. Making   the   above   submissions   it   is   prayed   to   allow   the
present appeal. 
8. Shri Garvesh Kabra learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the   State   has   supported   the   appellant   and   has   submitted
that the High Court has erred in acquitting respondent No.1
– accused No.2. 
9. The   present   appeal   is   opposed   by   Shri   R.M.   Sinha   learned
counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   respondent   No.1   –   accused
No.2. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent No.1 – accused No.2 that cogent reasons have
been   given   by   the   High   Court   while   acquitting   respondent
No.1   –   accused   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section
7

302 of the IPC, and therefore the same is not required to be
interfered with by  this Court in exercise of power  conferred
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 
9.1 It is further submitted that as rightly observed by the High
Court all the three prosecution witnesses had given accused
the   role   of   exhortation   only   and   no   further   overt   act   has
been   assigned   to   him   and   even   as   per   the   prosecution
witnesses   and   even   the   prosecution   the   fire   arm   was   used
by accused No.1 and the only allegation against respondent
No.1   herein   –   original   accused   No.2   was   exhortation.   The
High Court has rightly acquitted respondent No.1 – accused
for   the   offences   punishable   under   Section   302/34   of   the
IPC. 
10. Making   the   above   submissions   it   is   prayed   to   dismiss   the
present appeal.      
11. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the
respective parties at length. 
12. At   the   outset   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   in   the   present
case   right  from   the   very   beginning  the   name   of   respondent
No.1   was   disclosed.   Respondent   No.1   –   accused   No.2   was
named   in   the   FIR.   There   are   three   eye   witnesses   to   the
8

incident   namely   PW­1,   PW­2   and   PW­4   and   all   the
prosecution   witnesses   have   named   respondent   No.1   –
accused   No.2   and   all   of   them   have   stated   that   both   the
accused   came   at   the   pumping   set   where   the   deceased   was
sleeping   and   at   that   time   on   finding   the   deceased   sleeping
on the different cot, respondent No.1 herein – accused No.2
exhorted his son to kill the deceased and his son – accused
No.1   killed   the   deceased   by   fire   arm.   All   the   three
prosecution   witnesses   are   consistent   and   fully   supported
the   case   of   the   prosecution.   Even   the   High   Court   has   also
specifically observed and held that all the three prosecution
witnesses   are   reliable   and   trustworthy   and   there   is   no
reason to doubt them. Therefore, once even the High Court
also found all the three prosecution witnesses – PW­1, PW­2
and PW­4 trustworthy and reliable and in fact confirmed the
conviction of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under
Section 302/34 of the IPC, the High Court ought not to have
thereafter   doubted   the   presence   of   accused   No.2   –
respondent   No.1   herein.   Once   the   High   Court   has   even
confirmed   the   conviction   of   accused   No.1   relying   upon   all
the   three   eye   witnesses,   the   High   Court   ought   to   have
9

confirmed the conviction of respondent No.1 – accused No.2
also relying upon the three eye witnesses. 
12.1 From the reasoning given by the High Court it appears that
the   High   Court   has   acquitted   respondent   No.1   –   accused
No.2 just on the ground that all the three eye witnesses had
given him the role of exhortation and no overt act has been
assigned to him, this may be due to exaggeration of his role
so   as   to   falsely   implicate   him   and   see   that   the   father   and
son are put behind bars. However, it is required to be noted
that both the accused – father and son went together to the
place/pumping   set   where   the   deceased   was   sleeping.   Even
as per the High Court the motive has been established and
proved. The High Court has also observed that due to land
dispute   there   was   enmity   between   the   parties.   Therefore,
the   High   Court   ought   to   have   appreciated   that   respondent
No.1   –   accused   No.2   was   rightly   convicted   with   the   aid   of
Section 34 of the IPC as he with a common intention to kill
the   deceased   accompanied   his   son   and   on   finding   the
deceased   sleeping   on   the   different   cot   exhorted   his   son   to
kill   him   and   thereafter   his   son   killed   the   deceased   by   fire
arm. Therefore, once his presence has been established and
10

proved and specific role of exhortation was assigned to him,
the   High   Court   ought   to   have   confirmed   the   conviction   of
respondent   No.1   –  accused  No.2  for   the   offence  punishable
under Section 302/34 of the IPC.           
12.2 It is  also required  to  be  noted  that  as such  the High  Court
has   upheld/confirmed   the   conviction   of   accused   No.1   for
the   offence   punishable   under   Section   302/34   of   the   IPC.
Therefore,   once   the   conviction   of   accused   No.1   for   the
offence   punishable   under   Section   302/34   of   the   IPC   was
upheld/confirmed,   the   High   Court   ought   to   have
upheld/confirmed   the   conviction   of   accused   No.2   who   was
also   charged   for   the   offence   punishable   under   Section
302/34   of   the   IPC.   Both   the   accused   with   a   common
intention went to the place of deceased at mid­night and as
observed   hereinabove   the   motive   has   been   established   and
proved,   the   High   Court   has   committed   a   grave   error   in
acquitting   respondent   No.1   –   accused   No.2.   The   finding
recorded by the High Court is just contrary to the evidence
on   record.   The   impugned   judgment   and   order   is
unsustainable both, on law and on facts. 
11

13. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons   stated   above   the
present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order
passed   by   the   High   Court   acquitting   respondent   No.1   –
original   accused   No.2   –   Jaiprakash   Narain   Singh   is   hereby
quashed and set  aside and the  judgment and order  passed
by   the   learned   Trial   Court   convicting   him   for   the   offence
punishable   under   Section   302/34   of   IPC   and   sentencing
him   to   undergo   life   imprisonment   is   hereby   restored.   Now
respondent No.1 – original accused No.2 to surrender within
a period of four weeks to undergo life imprisonment.            
…………………………………J.
    (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
  (SANJIV KHANNA)
New Delhi, 
February, 9 th
 2022
12