Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. vs State of Uttarakhand

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

28 January 2025

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2013

Result

Allowed

Bench

Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai, Augustine George Masih

Citation

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 239 : 2025 INSC 114

Acts & Sections

IPC Arms Act, 1959 CrPC

Issue for consideration

Matter pertains to the correctness of the judgment of the High Court setting aside the acquittal by trial court and convicting the appellants u/s.302/34 IPC.

Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Murder – Common intention – Head Constable-main accused along with the appellantsConstables intercepted a car on suspicion of smuggling illegal liquor, and the Head Constable fired a shot from his revolver hitting the co-passenger seated in the front seat of the car, resulting in her death – Courts below convicted and sentenced the main accused, however his appeal was disposed of as abated – As regards the appellants, trial court acquitted them, however, the High Court convicted them for the offence punishable u/s.302/34 and sentenced them to imprisonment for life – Correctness:

Held: For convicting the accused with the aid of s.34, the prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds – It must be established that all the accused had preplanned 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 – Prosecution failed to place on record any evidence to show that the appellants had common intention with Head Constable prior to shooting the deceased – Impugned judgment quashed and set aside – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.379 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.27(3). [Paras 18-20]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.378 – Appeal against acquittal – Scope of interference – When:

Held: Interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial judge would be warranted by the High Court only if the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. [Para 12]

Judgment B.R. Gavai, J. 1. These appeals challenge the judgment and final order dated 27th December 2012 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital by which the High Court dealt with three Criminal Appeals which had been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 6th September 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun1. The first set of appeals before the High Court being Criminal Appeal Nos. 217 of 2006 and 218 of 2006 challenging the judgment and order of the trial court had been preferred by accused No.1-Jagdish Singh by which he had been convicted for the offence p

View Subscription Plans →