Justice or Impunity? A Reflection on Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand

On January 28, 2025, the judiciary once again found itself at the crossroads of law and conscience. The case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand was a stark reminder of the fragile balance between upholding justice and protecting institutional integrity. The Supreme Court quashed the conviction of three policemen accused of murder, citing a lack of evidence of common intention. But does the absence of evidence necessarily indicate the absence of guilt?

The Case in Brief
Three policemen were accused of murder, an allegation that sent shockwaves through the legal and law enforcement communities. The prosecution struggled to establish common intention—an essential element under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code—leading to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn their conviction. The judgment rested on the principle that justice cannot thrive on speculation; a conviction must be based on conclusive proof.

Yet, this ruling leaves behind a troubling question: If justice demands irrefutable evidence, how do we address crimes allegedly committed by those entrusted with enforcing the law?

The Burden of Proof vs. The Weight of Conscience
While the legal framework rightly necessitates proof beyond reasonable doubt, certain realities remain unresolved. Crimes involving law enforcement often suffer from systemic barriers—intimidation of witnesses, loss of crucial evidence, and institutional reluctance to prosecute. When an individual commits a crime, the state prosecutes with relentless rigor. But when the accused are members of the state’s own machinery, the standard of scrutiny appears insurmountably high. Does this create an implicit bias in favor of the accused?

The Court’s reliance on the absence of common intention raises another dilemma. Can the lack of explicit coordination among the accused absolve them entirely? In the realm of custodial violence and extrajudicial killings, intent is often obscured behind the walls of authority and protocol. Should justice not evolve to account for these complexities?

The Larger Implications
This case is not just about three policemen; it is about the message it sends to the public. Does it embolden impunity within the police force? Or does it reinforce the principle that justice must be blind to public pressure and emotional outcry?

The verdict may have upheld the legal principle of doubt benefiting the accused, but it leaves behind the uncomfortable reality that some injustices may never see the light of accountability. For the families seeking closure, for the society that places its faith in law enforcement, and for the judiciary that must reconcile fairness with truth—this judgment is a paradox.

In a system where power shields its own, one must ask: Is the law protecting justice, or merely preserving order?