Supreme Court overturns High Court conviction in police firing case: Surendra Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttarakhand (2025) INSC 114

Date of the Judgment: 28 January 2025
Citation: (2025) INSC 114
Judges: B.R. Gavai, J. and Augustine George Masih, J.
Can police officers be held liable for murder if they were present when a colleague fired a fatal shot? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a police shooting. The court overturned the High Court’s decision, acquitting three police officers who were initially convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih, with Justice Gavai authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On November 15, 2004, police received information about illegal liquor smuggling in a Maruti car. Head Constable Jagdish Singh, along with Constables Surendra Singh, Surat Singh, and Ashad Singh, set out to intercept the vehicle in an Indica car. Near IDPL Gate, they spotted the Maruti car. Head Constable Jagdish Singh fired a shot from his revolver when the Maruti car failed to stop. The bullet fatally injured a woman in the passenger seat. Sanjeev Chauhan, the driver and husband of the deceased, filed a complaint. Consequently, a case was registered against Head Constable Jagdish Singh and other police constables under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted Head Constable Jagdish Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, sentencing him to life imprisonment. However, it acquitted Constables Surendra Singh, Surat Singh, and Ashad Singh due to lack of sufficient evidence. The State of Uttarakhand appealed the acquittal. The High Court of Uttarakhand reversed the trial court’s decision, convicting the three constables under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The three constables then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with the punishment for murder, and Section 34 of the same code, which addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states: “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states: “Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.—When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.” Additionally, Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, was invoked against Head Constable Jagdish Singh for using a firearm without a license, which states: “Punishment for using arms, etc., in contravention of section 5.—(1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• They submitted that the trial court correctly found no evidence of a shared common intention between them and Head Constable Jagdish Singh.
• The appellants contended that the High Court should not have interfered with the trial court’s acquittal unless the trial court’s view was perverse or impossible.
• The appellants also argued that the allegation of assault made by the witnesses were not reliable as no independent witness was examined by the prosecution.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State of Uttarakhand argued that the High Court had sound reasons for reversing the acquittal.
• They contended that the presence of the appellants in the same vehicle as Head Constable Jagdish Singh was sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants innovatively argued that the High Court should not have interfered with the trial court’s acquittal unless the trial court’s view was perverse or impossible, challenging the scope of appellate review in cases of acquittal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issue:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal of the appellants and convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar [(2022) 3 SCC 471]* to reiterate the principles for appellate review against acquittal, emphasizing that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible.
• The Supreme Court used Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415]* to outline the general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court when dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal.
• The Supreme Court used H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [(2023) 9 SCC 581]* to summarize the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• The Supreme Court referred to Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka [(2024) 8 SCC 149]* to reiterate the legal position regarding the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal.
• The Supreme Court cited Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal [(2022) 6 SCC 576]* to support the argument that there must be evidence of a prior meeting of minds to establish a common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The Supreme Court used Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and another v. State of Gujarat [(2019) 14 SCC 339]* to emphasize the requirement of establishing prior meetings of minds to convict under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• The Supreme Court cited Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. State of Punjab [(2022) 2 SCC 545]* to highlight that the criminal act must be done in furtherance of the common intention of all the accused.
• The Supreme Court referred to Madhusudan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 4035]* to reiterate that the prosecution must establish that all the accused had a preplanned and shared common intention to commit the crime.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of evidence showing a prior meeting of minds or a common intention among the accused. The court emphasized that mere presence in the same vehicle is not sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Court also noted the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment, which had correctly found no evidence of shared intention. The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court had erred in reversing the trial court’s acquittal without sufficient legal basis.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the following points: The Court emphasized that for Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to apply, there must be evidence of a prior meeting of minds. The prosecution failed to show any evidence that the appellants shared a common intention with Head Constable Jagdish Singh to commit the crime. The Court also noted that the trial court’s judgment was well-reasoned and based on a careful consideration of the evidence. The High Court had reversed the trial court’s decision based on the mere presence of the appellants in the vehicle, which was not sufficient to establish a common intention. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had erred in reversing the acquittal and restored the trial court’s decision.

The Court stated, “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.” The Court also noted, “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.” Furthermore, the Court observed, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish criminal liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• To convict individuals under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the prosecution must prove that they had a prior meeting of minds and shared a common intention to commit the crime.
• Appellate courts should not reverse acquittals unless the trial court’s decision is perverse, based on misreading of evidence, or if no two reasonable views are possible.
• This judgment reinforces the principle that criminal liability requires a clear demonstration of shared intent and not just presence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the judgment and order of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Government Appeal No. 100 of 2008 was quashed and set aside. The judgment and order dated 6th September 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.50 of 2005 was affirmed. The appellants were on bail and their bail bonds were discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere presence at the scene of a crime is not sufficient to establish criminal liability under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution must prove a prior meeting of minds and shared common intention. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position concerning Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and clarifies the standard of evidence required for conviction under this provision.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s conviction of the three police constables, reaffirming the principle that common intention under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires more than mere presence. The court emphasized the need for evidence of a prior meeting of minds and shared intention to commit the crime. The judgment underscores the importance of a thorough review of evidence and the limitations on appellate courts when reversing acquittals.