Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court:

Common Intention Requires More Than Mere Presence – There Must Be Prior Meeting of Minds - Supreme Court of India ruled that conviction under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), requires proof of a shared criminal intent, and mere presence at the crime scene does not establish common intention. The High Court of Uttarakhand had reversed the acquittal of the appellants and convicted them under Section 302/34 IPC solely because they were present in the same vehicle as the main accused. The Supreme Court set aside this conviction, restored their acquittal, and reaffirmed that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s findings are perverse or unreasonable.

"For the application of Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a prior meeting of minds between all accused. Mere presence at the crime scene does not automatically establish common intention," the Court held while delivering its judgment.

The case arose from an incident on November 15, 2004, when police personnel in Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, attempted to intercept a Maruti car suspected of smuggling liquor. The police team, consisting of Head Constable Jagdish Singh and Constables Surendra Singh, Surat Singh, and Ashad Singh Negi, was traveling in a silver Indica car.

According to the prosecution, the police signaled the Maruti car to stop, but when it failed to do so, Head Constable Jagdish Singh fired a shot from his .38 bore revolver, hitting the co-passenger, Manisha Chauhan, in the head, resulting in her death. The deceased’s husband, Sanjeev Chauhan, lodged a complaint, and an FIR was registered against Jagdish Singh and unknown police constables under Section 302 IPC.

Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed against all four police officers, charging them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Sessions Court, Dehradun, convicted Jagdish Singh but acquitted the other three police officers, holding that there was no evidence of common intention. The State of Uttarakhand appealed against this acquittal before the High Court, which reversed the acquittal, holding that since all the accused were in the same vehicle, they shared a common intention to commit the crime. The High Court convicted the three acquitted police officers under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment. The accused then approached the Supreme Court, which has now set aside the High Court’s decision and restored their acquittal.

"Mere Presence in a Vehicle with the Shooter Does Not Prove Common Intention" - Supreme Court

The Supreme Court categorically rejected the High Court’s reasoning that the mere presence of the accused in the vehicle with the main shooter was sufficient to establish common intention under Section 34 IPC. "For a conviction under Section 34 IPC, the prosecution must establish that all the accused shared a common intention before or at the time of the crime. This requires prior planning or an active role in the execution of the crime. Mere presence in the car with the main accused does not fulfill this requirement," the Court held.

Referring to precedents such as Gadadhar Chandra v. State of West Bengal (2021) and Jasdeep Singh v. State of Punjab (2020), the Court reiterated the principle that "A person cannot be convicted under Section 34 IPC merely because they were present at the scene of the crime. There must be clear evidence of active participation and a shared intention to commit the offense."

The Court further noted that "The trial court had carefully examined all the evidence and concluded that there was no proof of common intention beyond mere presence. The High Court, in overturning this finding, failed to appreciate the well-settled principle that Section 34 IPC requires a prior meeting of minds. Without evidence of prior knowledge or active participation, the conviction under Section 34 IPC is legally unsustainable."

"Interference with an Acquittal Requires a Finding of Perversity" - Supreme Court on Scope of Appellate Review

The Supreme Court addressed the scope of appellate review in cases of acquittal and emphasized that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless it is shown to be perverse or unreasonable. "The High Court can interfere with an acquittal only if the trial court’s findings are perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or if no other reasonable conclusion is possible," the Court observed.

Citing Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2023), the Court explained, "The presumption of innocence is further strengthened when an accused is acquitted by the trial court. Unless the findings of the trial court are perverse, appellate courts should not interfere merely because another view is possible."

The trial court had acquitted the appellants after thoroughly considering the evidence and finding no proof of their involvement beyond their presence in the vehicle. The Supreme Court noted that "The High Court failed to demonstrate any perversity in the trial court’s reasoning. The prosecution had not provided any concrete evidence to establish that the appellants shared a common intention with the shooter. In such circumstances, the High Court’s interference was unjustified."

"No Evidence of Prior Planning or Participation – Conviction Cannot Be Sustained"

The Supreme Court scrutinized the evidence and found that the prosecution had failed to establish any prior meeting of minds among the accused. "The prosecution failed to produce any evidence proving that the appellants shared a common intention with Jagdish Singh. There was no evidence of prior planning or a meeting of minds between the accused," the Court held.

The Court further observed, "The appellants were subordinates following the orders of their senior officer, Jagdish Singh. Their mere presence in the vehicle does not indicate complicity in the crime. The High Court’s approach in assuming guilt by mere association is flawed and contrary to established legal principles."

Reaffirming the necessity of proving common intention, the Court ruled, "There is no evidence that the appellants had prior knowledge of the shooting or had planned the crime. Convicting them under Section 34 IPC would amount to punishing individuals without legal justification."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, quashed the High Court’s conviction, and restored the trial court’s acquittal. "The High Court erred in convicting the appellants solely on the basis of their presence in the vehicle with the main accused. For the application of Section 34 IPC, prior planning and shared intention must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's acquittal was based on a possible and reasonable view, and there was no perversity in its findings," the Court ruled.

In its concluding remarks, the Court stated, "The presumption of innocence of the appellants stands reaffirmed. The appeals are allowed. The judgment of the High Court is quashed. The judgment of acquittal by the trial court is restored. The appellants’ bail bonds shall stand discharged."

The ruling underscores the well-settled principle that conviction under Section 34 IPC requires clear evidence of common intention and active participation. It also reinforces the limited scope of appellate interference in cases of acquittal, ensuring that the presumption of innocence is not lightly disturbed.

Date of decision: 28/01/2025