IMPORTANT POINTS
(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 of common intention of all accused.
(2) Appeal against acquittal – Interference with finding of acquittal recorded by Trial Judge would be warranted by High Court only if Judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity.
Cases Referred:
Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal, (2022) 6 SCC 576 [Para 7] – Relied.
Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149 [Para 11] – Relied.
Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and another v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 14 SCC 339 [Para 20] – Relied.
Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 545 [Para 20] – Relied.
Madhusudan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4035 [Para 20] – Relied.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 read with Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5)] – Arms Act, 1959 – Section 27(1) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 419] – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Reversal of acquittal of co-accused persons by High Court – Interference with finding of acquittal recorded by Trial Judge would be warranted by High Court only if Judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; that same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and that no two reasonable views are possible and only view consistent with guilt of accused is possible from evidence available on record – In instant case, Trial Judge on the basis of ocular testimony of eyewitnesses has held that accused No.1- is guilty of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC as well as under Section 27(1) of Arms Act – Appeal of accused No.1 disposed of as abated – For convicting accused with aid of Section 34 of IPC prosecution must establish prior meetings of minds – It must be established that all accused had pre-planned and shared common intention to commit crime with accused who has actually committed crime – It must be established that criminal act has been done in furtherance of common intention of all accused – Prosecution has failed to place on record any evidence to show that appellants had common intention with accused No.1 – Judgment and order of High Court quashed and aside and judgment and order passed by Trial Court affirmed. (Paras 12, 13, 18, 19 and 20)
Facts of the case:
At the conclusion of trial, trial court convicted accused No.1-Jagdish Singh for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 27(1) of Arms Act, 1959 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life while acquitting three other accused-appellants since prosecution had failed to prove case beyond reasonable doubt insofar as they were concerned. Being aggrieved thereby, accused No.1-Jagdish Singh preferred two criminal appeals before High Court against order of his conviction and sentence. Respondent-State also preferred a criminal appeal before High Court against acquittal of other accused-appellants. High Court by impugned judgment dismissed criminal appeals preferred by accused No.1-Jagdish Singh and allowed criminal appeal preferred by respondent-State of Uttarakhand.
Findings of Court:
Prosecution has failed to place on record any evidence to show that the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (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.
Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

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. (!) (!) (!)

What is the test for convicting an accused with aid of Section 34 IPC requiring prior meetings of minds?

What is the standard for interference by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal?

What are the circumstances under which an acquittal can be reversed on an appeal by the State?

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 which they had been acquitted of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

2. The High Court dismissed the first set of criminal appeals preferred by accused No.1-Jagdish Singh thereby confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. However, the High Court allowed the Government Appeal preferred by the respondent-State of Uttarakhand and set aside the order of acquittal qua the appellants herein and convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed by the appellants herein.

3. Shorn of details, the facts which lead to the present appeals are as follows:-

3.1 On 15th November 2004, the SHO of the Police Station, Rishikesh received information that illegal liquor was being smuggled in a Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL2CR4766. On receipt of such information, at about 8:55 p.m., Head Constable of the Police Station Jagdish Singh along with the other accused-appellants Constable Surendra Singh, Constable Surat Singh and Constable Driver Ashad Singh set out in a silver-coloured Indica car to intercept the aforementioned Maruti car. At around 8:30 p.m., the police personnel spotted a Maruti car near IDPL Gate. Constable Ashad Singh, who was driving the car, and Head Constable Jagdish Singh attempted to stop the car by overtaking it and indicating to the driver of the Maruti car to halt. However, when the driver of the Maruti car failed to stop his car, Head Constable Jagdish Singh fired a single shot from 0.38 bore revolver that he was carrying with himself. 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.

3.2 As a corollary to this incident, on 16th November 2004, one Sanjeev Chauhan lodged a written complaint at Police Station, Rishikesh. According to the complaint, the complainant was driving down from Roorkee to Rishikesh in his Maruti car on 15th November 2004. He was in the driving seat while his wife Manisha (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) was sitting in the front passenger seat and his sister Km. Bharti and his daughter Km. Bhumika were sitting in the rear seats. Having started at around 6:45 p.m. from Roorkee, their car crossed Shyampur Railway Crossing which was close to IDPL gate at about 8:30 p.m. when a silver-coloured Indica car without a registration plate overtook the car of the complainant. The occupants of the Indica car who were dressed in police uniforms, indicated to the complainant to stop his car. However, when the complainant failed to comply, a bullet came to be fired by one of the occupants of the Indica car. The said bullet