2025 (1) TMI 1536 - SC - Indian Laws

Reversal of acquittal of the appellants - conviction u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC - sufficient evidence to establish a common intention among the appellants and accused No.1-Jagdish Singh to commit the crime - HELD THAT - It is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned 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. In the instant case the learned trial judge on the basis of ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses has held that the accused No.1-Jagdish Singh is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC as well as under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. Since the appeal of the said accused No.1-Jadgish Singh is disposed of as abated we did not go into the findings against the said 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. Conclusion - In the present case 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. The judgment and order of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Government Appeal No. 100 of 2008 is quashed and aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment were:

(1) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the appellants (Constable 907 Surendra Singh, Constable 192 Surat Singh, and Ashad Singh Negi) by the trial court and convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

(2) Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish a common intention among the appellants and accused No.1-Jagdish Singh to commit the crime.

(3) The scope of interference by an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Justification of High Court's Reversal of Acquittal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The legal framework involved Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which pertains to murder with common intention. Precedents include cases such as Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, which outline the principles for appellate interference in acquittal cases.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the High Court reversed the trial court's acquittal based on the appellants being in the same vehicle as accused No.1-Jagdish Singh. The High Court inferred common intention from their presence in the vehicle.

Key evidence and findings: The trial court found no evidence of a shared common intention among the appellants and accused No.1-Jagdish Singh. The appellants were not named in the initial report, and identification by witnesses was limited and insufficient to establish guilt.

Application of law to facts: The trial court's decision was based on the lack of evidence demonstrating a common intention. The High Court's reversal was based on the mere presence of the appellants in the vehicle, which the Supreme Court found insufficient for establishing common intention.

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellants argued that the High Court erred in finding common intention without substantial evidence. The respondent-State argued that the High Court provided sound reasons for its decision.

Conclusions: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal, as the trial court's findings were not perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.

2. Sufficiency of Evidence for Common Intention

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 34 of the IPC requires proof of shared common intention. Precedents emphasize the need for evidence of pre-planning and shared intent among accused persons.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court reiterated that mere presence at the crime scene is insufficient to establish common intention. There must be evidence of prior meetings of minds and a shared plan to commit the crime.

Key evidence and findings: The trial court found no evidence of a shared plan or common intention among the appellants and accused No.1-Jagdish Singh. The High Court's inference was based solely on their presence in the vehicle.

Application of law to facts: The Supreme Court found that the High Court's inference of common intention was not supported by evidence of pre-planning or shared intent.

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellants argued the lack of evidence for common intention, while the respondent-State supported the High Court's inference.

Conclusions: The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not support a finding of common intention among the appellants and accused No.1-Jagdish Singh.

3. Scope of Interference in Appeal Against Acquittal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The scope of interference is limited to cases of patent perversity or misreading of evidence. Precedents include Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasized that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.

Key evidence and findings: The trial court's decision was based on a careful consideration of evidence, and the Supreme Court found no perversity or misreading in the trial court's findings.

Application of law to facts: The Supreme Court found that the High Court's interference was unwarranted, as the trial court's decision was a possible view based on the evidence.

Treatment of competing arguments: The appellants argued that the High Court's interference was unwarranted, while the respondent-State argued for the validity of the High Court's decision.

Conclusions: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's interference was beyond the permissible scope, as the trial court's decision was not perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal of the appellants. The Court emphasized 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 the criminal act has been done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused."

The Court reaffirmed the principles governing appellate interference in acquittal cases, emphasizing that such interference is warranted only in cases of patent perversity or misreading of evidence. The final determination was to quash the High Court's judgment and restore the trial court's acquittal of the appellants.