Back
B. R. GAVAI, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Constable 907 Surendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Key Points: - Prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds for conviction under Section 34 IPC; evidence must show common intention and that the criminal act was done in furtherance of that common intention. (!) (!) - Interference with an acquittal by an appellate court is warranted only if the acquittal judgment suffers from patent perversity, misreading/omission of material evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible and only guilt view is possible. (!) (!) (!) - The appellate court has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, and may convict if the record supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt, otherwise it must uphold acquittal. (!) (!) (!) - In this case, the trial court’s finding that accused Nos. 2, 3, 4 lacked shared common intent with accused No.1 was upheld; High Court reversal was set aside, and trial court’s acquittal findings were restored as to those appellants. (!) (!) (!)
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, Dehradun [Hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial court’.]. 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-Jagdish Singh by which he had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [For short ‘IPC’.] and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 [For short ‘Arms Act’] and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The second set of appeal being Government Appeal No. 100 of 2008 before the High Court was filed by the respondent-State of Uttarakhand against the present appellants namely, Constable 907 Surendra Singh, Constable 192 Surat Singh and Ashad Singh Negi (accused Nos. 4, 2 and 3 respectively) challenging the said judgment of the trial court by whic
(1) Common intention – For convicting accused with aid of Section 34 of IPC prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds – It must be established that criminal act has been done in furtherance ....
Point of law : where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, i....
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the principle that two reasonable views should not disturb the trial ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
