Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
12. 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 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand 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.
13. In the instant case, the learned trial judge on the basis of ocular testimony of the eyewitnesses has held that the accused No.1-Jagdish Singh is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC as well as under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act. Since the appeal of the said accused No.1-Jadgish Singh is disposed of as abated, we did not go into the findings against the said accused.
14. The learned trial judge while recording the finding of acquittal insofar as the present appellants are concerned, has come to the following conclusions: (i) That these three accused (appellants herein) were in the car and the accused No.1-Jagdish Singh was senior to them, and that they were under the command of their senior officer; (ii) Accused Ashad Singh had admitted this aspect and had stated that he was driving the car under the orders of his superior officer; (iii) The remaining two accused had raised a plea of alibi, which was based on certain entries in the General Diary (G.D.) (iv) That accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (the appellants herein) were not named in the report; (v) From the evidence of Rajendra Singh Nagarkoti, P.W.9 as well as identification memo Exhibit Ka-13 prepared by the Executive Magistrate Bishan Singh Bisht, it was clear that only one accused, namely, Ashad Singh could be identified and that too only by one witness i.e. by P.W.1; (vi) That the identification of the accused by only one witness was not sufficient to come to a conclusion of guilt against the accused.
15. Upon consideration of these factors, the learned trial judge came to a conclusion that even if it was assumed that the remaining three accused had accompanied accused No.1-Jagdish Singh, there was no evidence to come to a conclusion that accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (the appellants herein) who were in car with accused No.1-Jagdish Singh had shared a common intention with him to fire upon or to kill the deceased. 250
16. The learned trial judge, therefore, found that the prosecution had failed to prove the mental involvement of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (the appellants herein) with accused No.1-Jagdish Singh beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt.
17. 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.
18. 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. Reliance in support of the aforesaid proposition could be placed on the following judgments of this Court in the cases of: (i) Ezajhussain Sabdarhussain and another v. State of Gujarat;7 (ii) Jasdeep Singh alias Jassu v. State of Punjab; 8 (iii) Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal (supra); and (iv) Madhusudan and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh.9
19. In the present case, as observed by the learned trial judge, the prosecution has failed to place on record any evidence to show that the accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 (the 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.
20. In the result, we pass the following order: (i) The appeals are allowed. (ii) The judgment and order of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Government Appeal No. 100 of 2008 is quashed and aside. (2019) 14 SCC 339 [2022] 2 SCR 647 : (2022) 2 SCC 545 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4035 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand (iii) The judgment and order dated 6th September 2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.50 of 2005 is affirmed. (iv) The appellants herein are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. (v) Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain