Constable 907 Surendra Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand
Citation: 2025 INSC 114; Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih
Background
This case arose from a fatal police firing incident during an operation targeting suspected liquor smugglers in Uttarakhand. Head Constable Jagdish Singh, along with Constables Surendra Singh, Surat Singh, and Ashad Singh Negi, intercepted a car and, during the incident, Jagdish Singh fired his revolver, killing a passenger. The trial court convicted only Jagdish Singh for murder under Section 302 IPC, acquitting the three constables due to lack of evidence of common intention. The State appealed, and the Uttarakhand High Court reversed the acquittal, convicting all three constables under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The constables then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court’s acquittal and convicting the constables under Section 302/34 IPC (murder with common intention).
What constitutes “common intention” under Section 34 IPC when multiple accused are present at the scene of a crime.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Principle of Common Intention:
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that to convict under Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must prove a prior meeting of minds and a shared intention to commit the crime. Mere presence at the scene or acting under the command of a superior is insufficient; there must be evidence that all accused acted in furtherance of a common plan.
Assessment of Evidence:
The trial court found the eyewitness testimonies unreliable and noted inconsistencies and delayed disclosures. Documentary evidence, such as General Diary entries, supported the constables’ alibi. The trial court concluded there was no proof that the three constables shared a common intention with Head Constable Jagdish Singh to commit murder.
Limits on Appellate Interference:
The Supreme Court emphasized the “double presumption of innocence” for acquitted persons and held that appellate courts should overturn acquittals only if the trial court’s findings are manifestly perverse or based on a misreading of evidence. The High Court, in this case, failed to demonstrate such perversity or misreading.
Outcome:
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s conviction of the three constables, restoring their acquittal by the trial court. The conviction of Jagdish Singh was not disturbed, as his guilt was independently established.
Significance
This judgment reinforces the high threshold for appellate courts to overturn acquittals, especially in criminal cases involving common intention. It clarifies that mere presence or subordinate status does not amount to shared criminal intent, and strong, direct evidence is required to convict under Section 34 IPC. The decision upholds vital safeguards for the accused and the integrity of the criminal justice process.
RELATED Blog
0 comments