Supreme Court: In a set of two criminal appeals against Uttarakhand High Court’s decisions, whereby the High Court confirmed the Head Constable’s conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 (‘Arms Act’) and allowed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of constables for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the Division Bench of BR Gavai* and Augustine George Masih, JJ. allowed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The Bench set aside the High Court’s decision reiterating that the prosecution failed to place any evidence to show that the three Constables had a common intention with the Head Constable to shoot the deceased.
Background
The SHO of the Police Station, Rishikesh received information that illegal liquor was being smuggled in a Maruti Car. The Head Constable of the Police Station (‘accused 1) along with the other accused Constables set out to intercept the aforementioned Maruti car. The Head Constable 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, the Head Constable fired a single shot from the 0.38 bore revolver. The shot hit the co-passenger seated in the front seat of the Maruti car in her temporal region, eventually leading to her death.
Corollary to this incident, a written complaint was lodged alleging that his wife was sitting in the front passenger seat and his sister and daughter were sitting in the rear seats. He alleged that 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 was fired by one of them which hit his wife.
The Trial Court convicted the Head Constable for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life while acquitting the three constables since the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Head Constable preferred two criminal appeals before the High Court against the order of his conviction and sentence. The State also preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court against the acquittal of the three Constables.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the criminal appeals preferred by the Head Constable and allowed the criminal appeal preferred by the State. During the hearing of the appeals, the Head Constable had passed away.
Analysis and Decision
On the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Bench relied on Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, wherein, it was settled 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 perused the Trial Court’s decision and the findings recorded therein resulting to the acquittal of the three Constables. The Court noted the following:
-
The three Constables were in the car and the Head Constable was senior to them, and that they were under the command of their senior officer;
-
One of the Constables had admitted this aspect and was driving the car under the orders of his superior officer;
-
The remaining two Constables had raised a plea of alibi, which was based on certain entries in the General Diary;
-
From the evidence of P.W.9 as well as the identification memo prepared by the Executive Magistrate, it was clear that only one Constable could be identified, and that too only by one witness;
-
That the identification of the accused by only one witness was not sufficient to come to a conclusion of guilt against the accused.
The Court also noted that the High Court allowed the State’s appeal on the ground that the remaining three accused/ Constables were sitting in the same vehicle along with Head Constable and this was sufficient to convict them with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.
The Court stated that-
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.
Hence, the Court said that in the present case, as concluded by the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution failed to place on record any evidence to show that the three Constables had a common intention with Head Constable before the shooting at the deceased resulting in her death, the appeals were allowed.
CASE DETAILS
|
Citation: Appellants : Respondents : |
Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Augustine George Masih, J.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
