RAJENDER SINGH AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

RAJENDER SINGH AND ORS. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

The Supreme Court held that (a) non-explanation of a grievous injury on accused Rajender was not fatal to the prosecution because the ocular testimony of four eyewitnesses was found clear, cogent and trustworthy; (b) Exhibit B (former statement of PW-8) was not legally proved and Section 145 Evidence Act was not complied with; (c) Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC did not apply on the facts; and (d) Triloki did not share the requisite common intention with Rajender to be convicted under Section 302/34—his conviction under 302/34 was set aside and substituted with conviction under Section 324 IPC with sentence of two years, while Rajender's conviction was altered to Section 302 IPC and life...

Parties
Appellant: Rajender Singh; Appellant: Triloki Singh; Respondent: The State of Bihar
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court; Final Judgment (partly Allowed)
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Topics
Murder (section 302 Ipc), Culpable Homicide/mens Rea (exception 4 to Section 300 Ipc), Common Intention (section 34 Ipc), Unlawful Assembly (section 302/149 Ipc), Non Explanation of Injuries on Accused, Former Statements and Section 145 Evidence Act, Conviction Alteration, Sentence
Criminal Law Evidence Murder (section 302 Ipc) Culpable Homicide/mens Rea (exception 4 to Section 300 Ipc) Common Intention (section 34 Ipc) Unlawful Assembly (section 302/149 Ipc) Non Explanation of Injuries on Accused Former Statements and Section 145 Evidence Act +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajender Singh

Appellant

Triloki Singh

Appellant

The State of Bihar

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court; Final Judgment (partly Allowed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-explanation of grievous injury on accused Rajender fatal to prosecution case
  2. 2 Whether the former statement (Exhibit B) was legally proved and Section 145 Evidence Act complied with
  3. 3 Whether Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC (sudden fight/heat of passion) applies

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that (a) non-explanation of a grievous injury on accused Rajender was not fatal to the prosecution because the ocular testimony of four eyewitnesses was found clear, cogent and trustworthy; (b) Exhibit B (former statement of PW-8) was not legally proved and Section 145 Evidence Act was not complied with; (c) Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC did not apply on the facts; and (d) Triloki did not share the requisite common intention with Rajender to be convicted under Section 302/34—his conviction under 302/34 was set aside and substituted with conviction under Section 324 IPC with sentence of two years, while Rajender's conviction was altered to Section 302 IPC and life...

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed.

Orders

  • Conviction of Triloki Singh under Section 302/34 IPC set aside and substituted with conviction under Section 324 IPC; sentence of two years RI imposed on Triloki Singh.
  • Conviction of Rajender Singh altered to one under Section 302 IPC (instead of 302/34) and life imprisonment affirmed.