Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on January 28, 2025, set aside the Uttarakhand High Court’s verdict convicting three constables for the 2004 fake encounter killing of a woman in Rishikesh. The court found no evidence of a meeting of minds between the appellants and the main accused, a head constable.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih allowed appeals filed by Constables Surender Singh, Surat Singh and driver Ashad Singh Negi against the 2008 judgment of the high court and restored the trial court's decision which had in 2006 acquitted them in the case.

As per the facts of the case, the SHO of a police station received a tip-off that illegal liquor was being smuggled in a Maruti car. A team led by Head Constable Jagdish Singh set out to intercept the Maruti Car. At around 8.30 pm, as the police team spotted the car, they indicated the Maruti car driver to stop. Jagdish fired a single shot from his revolver as the Maruti car did not stop. The said shot hit the co-passenger seated in the front seat of the Maruti car in her temporal region, eventually leading to her death. 

The next day, Sanjeev Chauhan lodged a written complaint that the policemen had killed his wife while he was coming from Roorkee to Rishikesh in his Maruti car. His sister and daughter were sitting in the rear seat of the vehicle.

Upon completion of the investigation and obtaining permission from the SSP Rishikesh, a charge sheet was filed against the four policemen.

The trial court convicted Jagdish Singh and sentenced him to imprisonment for life while acquitting the three other accused-appellants, saying the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt insofar as they were concerned.

The appeals were filed by the State and Jagdish Singh. The High Court upheld the conviction of Jagdish Singh and reversed the trial court's judgment by holding three other constables as guilty in the case.

Upon filing of appeals before the Supreme Court, all the accused were granted bail in 2013. Jagdish Singh died during the pendency of the matter.

On behalf of the appellants, senior advocate Devadatt Kamat submitted that the division bench of the high court had grossly erred in convicting the appellants with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.

He said no perversity or impossibility could be noticed in the view taken by the trial judge and as such the interference by the high court in an appeal against the acquittal was totally unwarranted.

The State counsel, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, however, maintained the high court had given sound reasons for reversing the order of acquittal and as such no interference was warranted in the present appeals.

Citing Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others Vs State of Karnataka (2024), the bench said, it is a settled legal position that the 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.

The court pointed out that upon consideration of various factors, the trial judge came to a conclusion that even if it was assumed that the remaining three accused had accompanied accused Jagdish Singh, there was no evidence to come to a conclusion that the appellants, who were in car with accused Jagdish Singh had shared a common intention with him to fire upon or to kill the deceased. 

The trial court had also noted three accused (appellants herein) were in the car and Jagdish Singh was senior to them, and that they were under the command of their senior officer and Ashad Singh was driving the police car.

The trial judge, therefore, found that the prosecution had failed to prove the mental involvement of the appellants herein with accused Jagdish Singh beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.

"However, this well-reasoned finding of the trial court has been upset by the High Court on the ground that the remaining three accused were sitting in the same vehicle along with accused Jagdish Kumar was sufficient to convict them with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC," the bench noted.

The court emphasised that 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. 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. 

"In the present case, as observed by the trial judge, the prosecution has failed to place on record any evidence to show that the appellants herein had common intention with accused Jagdish Singh prior to him shooting at the deceased resulting in her death," the bench said, setting aside the high court's judgment.

Case Title: Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr Vs State of Uttarakhand