Summary
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's reversal of the acquittal of three police constables. The High Court had convicted them of murder with the aid of Section 34 IPC merely because they were in the same car as the head constable who fired the fatal shot. There was no evidence of a prior meeting of minds, and the trial court's view was neither perverse nor impossible.
Issues
- In what circumstances an appellate court may reverse an order of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
- Whether constables travelling in the same vehicle as the head constable who fired the fatal shot could be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC without evidence of a shared common intention.
Provisions considered
- Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court held that a conviction with the aid of Section 34 requires proof of a prior meeting of minds: a pre-planned common intention shared with the actual assailant, and a criminal act done in furtherance of it. Mere presence in the same vehicle as the shooter does not suffice. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellants' conviction for murder rested only on constructive liability under Section 34. Once common intention was not proved, the conviction under Section 302 could not stand. (¶¶ 17, 19, 20)
- Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Relying on Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar, the Court restated when an appellate court may disturb an acquittal on an appeal by the State: patent perversity, misreading or omission of material evidence, or where the only reasonable view is one of guilt. (¶¶ 11, 12)
Held
- An appellate court may interfere with an acquittal only if the judgment suffers from patent perversity, rests on a misreading or omission of material evidence, or if no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with guilt can be drawn from the evidence. (¶¶ 11, 12)
- The trial court's acquittal was well reasoned. The appellants were juniors acting under the command of their senior officer and were not named in the report. Only one of them was identified, and by a single witness. Even assuming they were in the car, nothing showed that they shared an intention to fire at or kill the deceased. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16)
- To convict with the aid of Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must establish a prior meeting of minds, a pre-planned common intention shared with the person who actually committed the crime, and that the act was done in furtherance of that intention. The High Court erred in treating the appellants' presence in the same vehicle as enough. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Since the appeal of the head constable who fired the shot had abated on his death, the Court did not examine the findings against him. (¶¶ 5, 13)
Result
Appeals allowed. The High Court's judgment in the State's appeal against acquittal was quashed, and the Sessions Judge's acquittal of the appellants was restored. Their bail bonds were discharged.