LexCONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 239 : 2025 INSC 114 Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand (Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2013) 28 January 2025 [B.R. Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] 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. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 34 – Murder – Common intention – Head Constable-main accused along with the appellants- Constables 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] * Author 240 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports 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] Case Law Cited Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others v. State of Karnataka [2024] 5 SCR 174 : (2024) 8 SCC 149; Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal (2022) 6 SCC 576; Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and another v. State of Gujarat (2019) 14 SCC 339; Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. State of Punjab [2022] 2 SCR 647 : (2022) 2 SCC 545; Madhusudan and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4035 – relied on. List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Arms Act, 1959; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Acquittal by trial court; Common intention; Prosecution to establish prior meetings of minds; Preplanning and sharing common intention to commit crime; Criminal act; Furtherance of common intention; Patent perversity; Misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 355 of 2013 From the Judgment and Order dated 27.12.2012 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in GA No. 100 of 2008 and CRLA Nos. 217 and 218 of 2006 With Criminal Appeal No. 788 of 2013 [2025] 2 S.C.R. 241 Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand Appearances for Parties Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Atul Kumar, Ms. Sweety Singh, Ms. Archana Kumari, Rahul Pandey, Harsh Kumar, Sudipta Singha Roy, Himanshu Raj, Avdhesh K Singh, Munindra Dvivedi, Ms. Divya Bhalla, Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, Revanta Solanki, Hruday Bajentri, Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, Advs. for the Appellants. Kaushalpati Gautam, A.A.G., Akshat Kumar, Advitiya Awasthi, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Kamlendra Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court 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-
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.