S.34 IPC | Prior Meetings Of Minds Must Be Established To Convict With Aid Of 'Common Intention' : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court (January 28), while allowing constables' appeal against their conviction for murder, reiterated that in order to charge accused persons under Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC, it must be established that the accused had preplanned the act and shared a common intention. Reliance was placed on several judgments including the recent decision in Madhusudan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

“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.,” the Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Augustine George Masih said.

To provide brief facts, a head Constable (accused no. 1) along with the other accused-appellants attempted to stop a car after receiving information that illegal liquor was being smuggled in a car of a certain description. However, when the vehicle did not stop, the accused no. 1 fired a single shot, which led to the death of a co-passenger. The deceased's husband lodged a complaint against the accused persons.

Though the Trial Court convicted accused no.1 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, it acquitted the other accused. The Court reasoned that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the remaining accused. However, the High Court, through its impugned judgment, reversed these acquittals. In view of this, the present appeals were filed.

At the outset, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court can only interfere with the finding of acquittal in cases of patent perversity, omission of material evidence and when guilt is the only reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence. Reliance was placed on Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka., wherein the Court had reiterated these principles.

“It could thus be seen that it is a settled legal position that the interference with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned 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 noted that the Trial Court had arrived at the above finding after taking into account several facts and circumstances. The other accused persons, who were in the car, were under the command of their senior officer, accused no. 1. Further, there was the identification of just one accused by only one witness. Thus, the Trial Court had concluded that there was no sufficient evidence to conclude that the remaining accused persons shared a common intention.

“However, this well-reasoned finding of the learned 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 No.1-Jagdish Kumar was sufficient to convict them with the aid of Section 34 of the IPC.,” the Court said while affirming the Trial Court's decision and setting aside the High Court's verdict.

Appearances:

Appellants: Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Harsh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sudipta Singha Roy, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Raj, Adv. Mr. Avdhesh K Singh, Adv. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Munindra Dvivedi, Adv. Ms. Divya Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Gulab Inamdar, Adv. Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv. Mr. Hruday Bajentri, Adv. Ms. B. Vijayalakshmi Menon, AOR

Respondents: Mr. Kaushalpati Gautam, A.A.G. Mr. Akshat Kumar, AOR Mr. Advitiya Awasthi, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, AOR

Case Name: CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 355 OF 2013

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 134

Click here to read/ download the judgment