Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Constable Surendra Singh, Constable Surat Singh, and Constable Ashad Singh Negi, setting aside their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and restoring their acquittal by the trial court. The case arose from an incident on 15 November 2004 when police personnel, including Head Constable Jagdish Singh and the appellants, attempted to intercept a Maruti car suspected of smuggling illegal liquor. When the car did not stop, Jagdish Singh fired a shot that killed the complainant's wife, Manisha. The trial court convicted Jagdish Singh under Section 302 IPC and Section 27(1) Arms Act, but acquitted the other three constables, holding that the prosecution failed to prove common intention. The High Court, in a government appeal, reversed the acquittal and convicted all three constables under Section 302/34 IPC. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited scope in an appeal against acquittal. The trial court's view that there was no evidence of common intention among the appellants was plausible and not perverse. The allegations of assault by the appellants, introduced for the first time in court by PW-1 and PW-2, were improvements and lacked independent corroboration. Relying on Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, the Court reiterated that interference with acquittal is warranted only if the trial court's view is impossible or perverse. Since the trial court's reasoning was sound, the High Court's reversal was unjustified. The appeals were allowed, and the appellants' acquittal was restored.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Scope of Interference - Section 378 CrPC - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the trial court's view is perverse or impossible; mere possibility of a different view is insufficient. The appellate court must give due weight to the presumption of innocence and the trial court's advantage of seeing witnesses. (Paras 11-12)
B) Criminal Law - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - For conviction under Section 34 IPC, there must be evidence of a pre-arranged plan or prior meeting of minds to commit the criminal act. Mere presence or subsequent assault without proof of shared intention with the principal offender is insufficient. (Paras 7, 13)
C) Evidence - Improvement in Testimony - Witnesses - Where prosecution witnesses introduce new allegations (e.g., assault) for the first time in court without corroboration by independent witnesses, such evidence is unreliable and cannot form the basis of conviction. (Paras 7, 13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and whether the appellants shared common intention with the main accused.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed. Impugned judgment of the High Court convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC is set aside. The judgment of the trial court acquitting the appellants is restored. Bail bonds of the appellants are discharged.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Scope of interference
- Section 34 IPC
- Common intention
- Perversity
- Reappreciation of evidence
Case Details
2025 LawText (SC) (1) 281
Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 2013
Mr. Devadatt Kamat (for appellants), Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey (for respondent-State)
Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr.; Ashad Singh Negi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and life imprisonment imposed by High Court reversing trial court's acquittal.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought setting aside of High Court judgment convicting them and restoration of trial court's acquittal.
Filing Reason
Appellants were convicted by High Court for murder with common intention despite trial court finding no evidence of common intention.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted accused No.1 Jagdish Singh under Section 302 IPC and Section 27(1) Arms Act, but acquitted appellants. High Court dismissed Jagdish Singh's appeal and allowed State's appeal, convicting appellants under Section 302/34 IPC.
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Whether the appellants shared common intention with the main accused Jagdish Singh to commit murder.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and no perversity existed; High Court erred in interfering. Allegations of assault were improvements without independent corroboration.
Respondent-State argued that High Court gave sound reasons for reversing acquittal and no interference is warranted.
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court can interfere only if the trial court's view is perverse or impossible. The trial court's finding that there was no evidence of common intention among the appellants was plausible and not perverse. Allegations of assault introduced for the first time in court without independent corroboration cannot be relied upon. Hence, the High Court's reversal was unjustified.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned trial judge on an elaborate consideration of the evidence had come to a considered opinion that insofar as the present appellants are concerned there is no evidence to show that the present appellants had shared a common intention with the accused No.1-Jagdish Singh.
The interference in the judgment of acquittal by the learned trial judge would have been warranted by the High Court only in the event the view taken by the learned trial judge was found to be perverse or impossible.
Since the view taken by the learned trial judge was a plausible view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the same.
Procedural History
On 15.11.2004, incident occurred. FIR registered on 16.11.2004. Charge sheet filed under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 27(3) Arms Act. Trial court convicted Jagdish Singh and acquitted appellants on 06.09.2006. High Court dismissed Jagdish Singh's appeal and allowed State's appeal, convicting appellants on 27.12.2012. Appellants filed appeals under Section 379 CrPC before Supreme Court. Jagdish Singh's appeals abated on his death on 16.01.2025. Supreme Court heard appeals and delivered judgment on 10.02.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302, Section 34
- Arms Act, 1959: Section 27(1), Section 27(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 378, Section 379
