High Court Conviction of Three Constables Overturned; Supreme Court Restored Trial Court's Acquittal

A bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih heard appeals against a Division Bench judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court which had set aside the trial court’s acquittal of three police constables and convicted them for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC arising from a fatal shooting during an attempted interception on 15 November 2004.

The Court allowed the appeals filed by Constable Surendra Singh, Constable Surat Singh and Constable Ashad Singh Negi and quashed the High Court’s judgment convicting them. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disturbing the trial judge’s finding that the prosecution had not proved that the three accused shared a common intention with the shooter to cause the death. The Court reiterated settled principles on interference in appeals against acquittal and emphasised the limited circumstances in which a conviction may be substituted for an acquittal. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “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 also noted that the trial judge had 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.”

Background On the night of 15 November 2004 police in Rishikesh attempted to intercept a Maruti car alleged to be smuggling liquor. Head Constable Jagdish Singh, accompanied by three other police personnel in an Indica, fired a single shot which struck the front-seat female passenger, who later died. A First Information Report was registered and separate charge-sheets were filed. At trial (Sessions Trial No.50 of 2005) the Sessions Judge convicted Head Constable Jagdish Singh for offences including culpable homicide and under the Arms Act, and acquitted the three other accused (constables Surendra Singh, Surat Singh and Ashad Singh) on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish their participation or common intention.

The State appealed the acquittal of the three constables before the Uttarakhand High Court, which allowed the Government appeal, convicted them under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court. During proceedings one of the convicted persons, Head Constable Jagdish Singh, died and his appeals abated. The Supreme Court heard arguments from Mr. Devadatt Kamat for the appellants and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey for the State. The Court analysed precedents governing appellate interference with acquittals, including recent authoritative rulings that an appellate court may re-appreciate evidence but should not overturn an acquittal unless the trial court’s view was perverse, based on omission to consider material evidence, or where no two reasonable views on the evidence were possible. Applying these principles, the Court found no basis to displace the trial judge’s conclusion that mere presence in the same vehicle did not establish prior meeting of minds or common intention to commit murder. The Supreme Court therefore allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s conviction order, affirmed the trial court’s judgment, and directed discharge of the appellants’ bail bonds.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 114 (Criminal Appeal Nos. 355 of 2013; 788 of 2013; connected matters) Case Title: Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand; with Ashad Singh Negi v. State of Uttarakhand Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned senior counsel For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the State