Case name: CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH & ANR VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Case number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 788 OF 2013
Date: 28-01-2025
Quorum: B.R. GAVAI, J.
FACTS OF THE CASE
This case revolves around the incident that happened on November 15, 2004, where the police officials acting on the information about the illegal liquor smuggling noticed the car attempting to stop the Maruti car. The police team consists of head constable Jagadish Singh and the constables Surendra Singh, Surat Singh and Ashad Singh. When the Maruti car driver refused to stop the car for investigation, Jagdish Singh fired a shot which hit and killed the passenger in the Maruti car, Manisha Chauhan. Following the incident the complaint was filed, FIR lodged and subsequent trial procedures conducted. As a result the trial court acquitted the other three constables from the charge of murder read with common intention. Further, an appeal was before the high court and the learned judges allowed the appeal and convicted the other three constables for the charge of murder under section 302 of IPC. Now the case is before the supreme court as the criminal appeal filed by the appellants to restore the order of the trial court.
ISSUES
- Whether the accused shared a common intention under section 34 of IPC to commit the crime?
- Whether the acquittal of the three constables by the judgment of the trial court was justified?
- Whether the prosecution proved sufficiently the evidence to establish the involvement of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 302 IPC punishment for murder
- Section 34 IPC Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- Section 27(1) Arms Act, 1959 Punishment for using arms, etc
ARGUMENTS
ARGUMENTS FOR THE APPELLANT
- The appellant contended that the judgment delivered by the trial court in acquitting the appellants was correct because there is no evidence to prove the common intention of other three constables’ involvement in the crime under section 34 of IPC.
- The appellant was merely acting according to the command of their senior officer and had no intention to commit the crime of murder under section 302 IPC.
- The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt about the involvement of the accused persons who shared a premeditated plan to kill the victim.
- The appellant argued that the identification of the accused by only one witness’s testimony was insufficient for conviction.
- The judgment by the high court erroneously ordered and revised the trial court’s well-reasoned judgment.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE RESPONDENT
- The accused persons presence in the vehicle along with Jagdish Singh indicated their complicity and the involvement in the act.
- The trial court erred in acquitting the other three constables despite there is ample evidence suggesting their active involvement.
- The high court correctly convicted and reversed the order of the trial court was justified by demonstrating their participation in the crime.
- The firing of a shot by a police officer in a public setting was reckless and it is illegal and the constables should be held accountable.
ANALYSIS
- The trial court found that the other three constables were only merely present and did not share any common intention to fire at the victim.
- The high court overruled the judgment of the high court’s decision, and convicted them under section 302 for murder read with the section 34 common intention, by stating that their presence in the vehicle indicate the shared intention to commit crime.
- The supreme court reviewed the evidence pronounced by the appellant and reaffirmed that mere presence of constables in the car does not establish common intention under section 34 of IPC.
- The supreme court ruled that the high court erred in convicting the accused without strong evidence.
JUDGMENT
The supreme court allowed the appeal filed by the constables, reversing the order passed by the high court and restoring the order of the trial court in acquitting the appellants in the present case. It was held there was no substantive evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant who shared a common intention with the accused Jagadish Singh to commit the crime and the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused person beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
Through this judgment it is important to note that the mere presence of the person at the crime scene does not amount to common intention under section 34 IPC. The supreme court order reaffirms the acquittal should not be overturned unless there is strong and compelling evidence to prove the accused direct involvement in the crime.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: MUTHULAKSHMI B
