SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS A BALANCE OF JUSTICE AND REFORMATION IN SANDEEP VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, by a Division Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal, Justice R. Mahadevan, in the matter of Sandeep v State of Uttarakhand [2024 INSC 771] by its judgement dated vide Order dated 14.10.2024, the Court carefully reviewed the evidence, considering the legal aspects of shared intention, and took into account various factors before delivering its decision which delves deep into common intention under Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Facts:

In 1997, Abdul Hameed was shot and killed outside his house in Uttarakhand.

The Prosecution alleged that four men, including Appellant, arrived at Hameed’s house, demanding jaggery (gur). When Hameed refused, Appellant, on the alleged instigation of his accomplices, fired at Hameed, hitting him in the chest and arm.

Hameed’s son, Kale Hasan (PW1), who was nearby, immediately took his father to the hospital, where Hameed was declared dead. The Police registered a complaint based on Hasan’s report the next day.

Appellant was arrested shortly after the crime, and during the investigation, the Police recovered a country-made pistol, allegedly used in the shooting, based on Appellant’s information.

A post-mortem revealed that Abdul Hameed died due to gunshot wounds in the chest and arm.

After a trial, the Additional Sessions Court convicted Appellant for the murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment, while acquitting the other Accused.  Appellant was convicted for murder (Section 302 r/w 34 IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. His co-accused were acquitted. The Court found insufficient evidence to prove his involvement under the Arms Act, 1959 and acquitted him of those charges.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Appellant appealed to the High Court, which also upheld the conviction. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court the Appellant approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of a Criminal Appeal [CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2224 OF 2014]

Issues

1)  Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified, especially when the co-accused were acquitted.

2) Whether the benefit of doubt should have been extended to Appellant, given the evidence.

3) Whether there were discrepancies in the witness testimonies that could affect the conviction.

4) Appropriateness of the sentence in light of mitigating factors, including Appellant’s conduct during incarceration.

Appellant’s Arguments

Appellant’s counsel argued that the key witnesses, PW1 and PW2, provided inconsistent details. For instance, though they claimed to witness the shooting, no bloodstains were found on them.

The FIR did not specify who fired the shot, and no distinct role was attributed to Appellant. Important figures like Mangti Devi (the deceased’s wife) and the Sub-Inspector conducting the investigation were not examined, weakening the Prosecution’s case.

There was no clear mention of the source of light at the crime scene in the FIR, raising questions about the witnesses’ ability to identify the shooter. Two of the co-accused were acquitted of the same charges, raising doubts about the fairness of convicting Appellant alone.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondent argued that both PW1 and PW2 clearly identified Appellant as the shooter. PW1 testified that Appellant shot his father in the chest and arm.

The country-made pistol used in the shooting was recovered based on Appellant’s statements, corroborating his involvement. The inconsistencies pointed out by the Appellant’s counsel were minor and did not affect the Prosecution’s core case.

Despite the acquittal of the other Accused, the Prosecution proved Appellant’s involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, justifying his conviction.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) based on the consistent and credible testimony of eyewitnesses (PW1 and PW2), who both saw Sandeep shoot Abdul Hameed. The Court found that the discrepancies highlighted by the defense were minor and did not affect the overall reliability of the prosecution’s case. The Court relied on C. Muniappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) to establish that minor contradictions in witness testimonies do not necessarily negate the credibility of the overall evidence.

The Supreme Court referred to State of U.P. vs. M.K. Anthony (1985) and State of Rajasthan vs. Om Prakash (2007) held that for a conviction under Section 34 IPC, there must be evidence of shared intention among the accused, which was lacking in this case.

The Court found no evidence to support the application of Section 34 IPC (common intention). Although PW1 and PW2 claimed that the co-accused instigated Appellant to shoot, the investigating officer did not corroborate this.

Since the co-accused were acquitted, Appellant could not be held solely liable under Section 34 IPC the judgement of found no evidence of common intention between Appellant and the other accused, especially in light of their acquittal. Therefore, the charge under Section 34 IPC was ruled unsustainable.

Considering Appellant’s good conduct and other mitigating factors, the Court reduced his sentence to the period already served (approximately 17 years). He was ordered to be released immediately, provided he paid the fine imposed by the Sessions Court

 

Ashita

Associate

The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services.