Appeals against a High Court’s judgment. The High Court had overturned the acquittal of police constables Surendra Singh, Surat Singh, and Ashad Singh Negi in a murder case, convicting them for the death of a woman shot during an attempted vehicle stop. The Supreme Court reviews the principles governing appellate courts’ interference with acquittals, emphasizing the need for patent perversity or misreading of evidence to reverse such a finding. Ultimately, the Supreme Court allows the appeals, affirming the trial court’s initial acquittal of the constables due to the prosecution’s failure to prove common intention among them and the officer who fired the fatal shot.
Penal Code, 1860, Section 302 read with Section 34 – Arms Act, 1959, Section 27(1) – Murder – Acquittal – Common intention – Judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned trial Court reversed by High Court – Learned trial judge while recording the finding of acquittal insofar as the present appellants are concerned, has come to the conclusions:- (i) That these three accused (appellants herein) were in the car and the accused No.1-Jagdish Singh was senior to them, and that they were under the command of their senior officer; -(ii) Accused Ashad Singh had admitted this aspect and had stated that he was driving the car under the orders of his superior officer; – (iii) The remaining two accused had raised a plea of alibi, which was based on certain entries in the General Diary (G.D.) – (iv) That accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (the appellants herein) were not named in the report; – (v) From the evidence of P.W.9 as well as identification memo Exhibit Ka-13 prepared by the Executive Magistrate, it was clear that only one accused, namely, Ashad Singh could be identified and that too only by one witness i.e. by P.W.1;- (vi) That the identification of the accused by only one witness was not sufficient to come to a conclusion of guilt against the accused – Upon consideration of these factors, the learned trial judge came to a conclusion that even if it was assumed that the remaining three accused had accompanied accused No.1- Jagdish Singh, there was no evidence to come to a conclusion that accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (the appellants herein) who were in car with accused No.1-Jagdish Singh had shared a common intention with him to fire upon or to kill the deceased – The learned trial judge, therefore, found that the prosecution had failed to prove the mental involvement of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (the appellants herein) with accused No.1-Jagdish Singh beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt – However, this well-reasoned finding of the learned trial court has been upset by the High Court on the ground that the remaining three accused were sitting in the same vehicle along with accused No.1-Jagdish Kumar was sufficient to convict them with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC – Held that by now it is a settled principle of law that for convicting the accused with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC the prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds – It must be established that all the accused had pre-planned and shared a common intention to commit the crime with the accused who has actually committed the crime – It must be established that the criminal act has been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused – As observed by the learned trial judge, the prosecution has failed to place on record any evidence to show that the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (the appellants herein) had common intention with accused No.1-Jagdish Singh prior to the accused No.1-Jagdish Singh’s shooting at the deceased resulting in her death – Judgment and order of the High Court liable to be quashed and aside – Judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge affirmed.
(Para 14 to 20)
Constable 907 Surendra Singh V. State Of Uttarakhand
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 114: (DoJ 28-01-2025)
