Case: Amar Singh Vs. State of Haryana

2. The prosecution case was as follows. Onat about 5 P. M. Thandu Ram of village Sabarwas was going out of his house and when he reached near the Chabutra of Gopal, he saw Girdhari Nirab and asked him to tell as to when his turn of water would commence. Girdhari replied that he would tell about that shortly and went towards his house. Bhallu and Kurra, having lathis with them came from the back side of Thandu Ram and gave one lathi blow each to him (Thandu Ram). They also tried to drag Thandu Ram but Mool Chandcame there and saved him. At that time, the appellant and Hari Singh were sitting on the chabutra in front of their house along with Ram Sarup. The appellant was armed with Jaili and Hari Singh with a gun which belonged to Ram Sarup. The appellant and Hari Singh shouted to Bhallu and Kurra to drag Thandu Ram to that place. Kurra and Bhallu dragged Thandu Ram for 2/3 karams. At that time Biru and Bhana reached there. Mool Chand, Biru and Bhana intervened and prevented Kurra and Bhallu from dragging Thandu Ram further. The appellant and Hari Singh, followed by Ram Sarup, came towards Thandu Ram and when they were at a distance of 5/6 karams, the appellant exhorted Hari Singh to shoot at Thandu Ram. Hari Singh thereupon fired at Thandu Ram but by that time Thandu Rams daughter Mst. Indro came there and the shot hit her. Mst. Indro, on receipt of the shot fell down. The appellant again exhorted Hari Singh to fire at Thandu Ram because the first shot did not hit Thandu Ram. and when Hari Singh tried to reload the gun, Mool Chand snatched the gun from him. The appellant aimed his Jaili towards Mool Chand but he warded it off by the gun in his hands which was broken as a result of the blow. Ram Sarup tried to snatch the gun from Mool Chand but in the meantime, Ram Chander, son of Thandu Ram came there and gave a lathi blow on the head of Ram Sarup. The appellants Hari Singh, Ram Sarup, Kurra and Bhallu then went towards the house of appellant. Thandu Ram and others brought Mst. Indro to the house. She was alive at that time. The injuries of Indro were bandaged. No arrangement for the conveyance to take her to the hospital could be made. Indro died at 7.30 P. M.3. After the death of Mst. Indro, Thandu Ram left for the police station and lodged the first information report at 2 A.M. which was recorded by Rameshar Dass, S.H.O., P. S. Bhuna. Theaccompanied by Thandu Ram came to the spot at 5 A.M. He found the dead body of Mst. Indro lying at the house of Thandu Ram. He prepared the inquest report and sent the dead body forexamination. Thandu Ram also produced the gun and the cartridge (empty) before thewho took them into possession. Rameshwar Dass, S. I. arrested the accused on September 12, 1969, from near the village Kumharia, and after the usual investigation, the accused were challaned.

Reasoning:
10. The acts of the appellant spoken to by PWs. 3, 4 and 5 would clearly show that he had common intention with Hari Singh to commit the murder of Thandu Ram with whom they were on enimical terms. If the appellant had only shouted lalkar, probably it would have been difficult to sustain the conviction. But the part played by him in the incident as found by the High Court would clearly indicate that he was guilty of the offence under S. 302 read with S. 34.The findings of the trial Court as confirmed by the High Court would clearly show that the appellant had the common intention. The facts proved and the evidence adduced would have been the same if the appellant had been charged under Section 302 read with S. 34 and we do not see how the appellant was prejudiced.14. We have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was right in its conclusion that, as the appellant had common intention with Hari Singh to murder Thandu Ram, there was no illegality in convicting him under Section 302 read with S. 34.