Supreme Court modifies life sentence in murder case: Sandeep vs. State of Uttarakhand (2024)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the conviction of an accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the same code can be sustained when the co-accused have been acquitted and the evidence of instigation is contradictory. CASE TYPE: Criminal Law. Case Name: Sandeep vs. State of Uttarakhand. Judgment Date: 14 October 2024

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 October 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 771
Judges: Pankaj Mithal, J., R. Mahadevan, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld when the co-accused are acquitted and the evidence regarding common intention is inconsistent? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where the accused was convicted for murder, but the evidence regarding his co-accused and common intention was contradictory. The Court examined the evidence and modified the sentence.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan, delivered the judgment. Justice R. Mahadevan authored the opinion.

Case Background

On October 30, 1997, at approximately 9:45 PM, Abdul Hameed was fatally shot in his courtyard. The complainant, Kale Hasan, son of the deceased, reported that four individuals—Veer Singh, Mintu, Dharamveer, and Sandeep (the appellant)—came to his house. They confronted his father for refusing to give them jaggery (gur). According to the complaint, the accused shot Abdul Hameed. The complainant, along with Gufran Ali and Naseem, reached the courtyard after hearing the gunshot and saw the four accused fleeing the scene. Abdul Hameed was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead.

The police registered a case against all four accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. During the investigation, a country-made pistol and an empty cartridge were recovered from a field, based on information provided by the appellant, Sandeep. The appellant was also charged under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant, Sandeep, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 34, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The other two co-accused, Veer Singh and Dharamveer, were acquitted. The appellant was also acquitted of charges under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959. The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital upheld the Sessions Court’s decision. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
• Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959: These sections pertain to the possession and use of illegal firearms.

These provisions are part of the Indian legal system, which is governed by the Constitution of India. The Indian Penal Code defines criminal offenses and their punishments, while the Arms Act regulates the possession and use of firearms.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that since the prosecution’s case involved four individuals with identical roles, the acquittal of two co-accused should have led to the appellant’s acquittal as well.
• The counsel pointed out that the appellant was acquitted under the Arms Act, making the murder charge improbable.
• The prosecution witnesses (P.W.1 and P.W.2) did not have bloodstains on their clothes despite claiming to have seen the deceased bleeding.
• The FIR did not mention the source of light at the crime scene, and the specific weapons held by each accused were not detailed.
• The motive for the murder (denial of jaggery) was vague, and the testimonies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 had inconsistencies.
• The key witness, Mangti (wife of the deceased), and the Sub-Inspector who investigated the case were not examined, which is detrimental to the prosecution.
• The appellant had already served more than 14 years in jail and, therefore, a lenient view should be taken regarding the sentence.

State’s Arguments:

• The State argued that P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly identified the appellant as the one who shot the deceased.
• P.W.2 specifically stated that the appellant fired the shot, while the other co-accused were armed with different weapons.
• P.W.4 testified that the country-made pistol was recovered based on the appellant’s information.
• There was sufficient light at the scene of the crime for identification.
• The non-examination of some witnesses was not sufficient to discard the ocular evidence provided by P.W.1 and P.W.2.
• The prosecution had successfully proven the charge against the appellant, and the concurrent findings of the lower courts should not be interfered with.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of the same code can be sustained when the co-accused have been acquitted and the evidence of instigation is contradictory.
2. What should be the appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering the facts and circumstances of the case?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2010) 9 SCC 567]: The Court cited this case to emphasize that minor discrepancies in evidence should not lead to the rejection of the entire case if the core of the prosecution’s case remains consistent. The Court stated that “an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution’s witness.”
• Union of India v. V. Sriharan [(2016) 7 SCC 1]: This Constitutional Bench judgment was cited to establish that the High Court or Supreme Court has the power to impose a fixed-term sentence or modified punishment.
• Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka [(2023) 9 SCC 817]: The Court referred to this case to reiterate that constitutional courts can impose a modified or fixed-term sentence, specifying that a life sentence can be for a fixed period of more than fourteen years.
• Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala [2024 SCC OnLine SC 315]: This Full Bench decision was cited to highlight that courts must decide the appropriate number of years of imprisonment by considering various factors, including the crime, the interest of society, and other relevant factors.
• Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka [(2008) 13 SCC 767]: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the principle of proportionality in sentencing and the need to consider both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Statutes:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section was considered for the charge of murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section was considered for the charge of common intention.
• Section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959: These sections were considered for the charges related to illegal firearms.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2010) 9 SCC 567]* to emphasize that minor discrepancies should not invalidate the prosecution’s case. The Court cited Union of India v. V. Sriharan [(2016) 7 SCC 1]* to affirm its power to modify sentences, and Shiva Kumar @ Shiva @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka [(2023) 9 SCC 817]* to support its decision to modify the life sentence to a fixed term. Further, the Court used Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala [2024 SCC OnLine SC 315]* and Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka [(2008) 13 SCC 767]* to guide its decision on sentencing, emphasizing the principle of proportionality and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors, including the direct eyewitness testimony identifying the appellant as the shooter, the recovery of the weapon based on the appellant’s information, and the medical evidence confirming the cause of death. The court also considered the inconsistencies in the evidence related to Section 34 IPC, which led to the acquittal of the co-accused. Additionally, the court took into account the appellant’s long period of incarceration, his good conduct in jail, and the possibility of his reformation.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the factual evidence presented, with legal considerations playing a secondary role in the final decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that while the evidence supported the appellant’s individual act of murder, the inconsistencies regarding common intention under Section 34 IPC warranted setting aside that conviction. The court also considered the appellant’s long incarceration and good conduct in jail while modifying the sentence.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, particularly the argument that if the co-accused were acquitted, the appellant should also be acquitted. However, the Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the evidence against the appellant for the act of murder was sufficient and distinct from the evidence against the co-accused. The Court also considered the argument that the appellant’s acquittal under the Arms Act made the murder charge improbable, but this was rejected on the grounds that the standards of proof and procedures for prosecution are different under the two statutes. The final decision was reached by weighing the evidence and applying the relevant legal principles.

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of Abdul Hameed. However, the Court set aside the conviction under Section 34 of the IPC, which pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. The court modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, considering his long incarceration and the possibility of his reformation.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The eyewitness testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly identified the appellant as the shooter.
• The recovery of the country-made pistol based on the appellant’s information corroborated the prosecution’s case.
• The medical evidence confirmed that the deceased died from gunshot injuries.
• The evidence regarding common intention under Section 34 IPC was inconsistent and contradictory.
• The appellant had already served a significant portion of his sentence (more than 14 years) and had exhibited good conduct in jail.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment in C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2010) 9 SCC 567]: “an undue importance should not be attached to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution’s witness.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

The Court’s reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the evidence, the application of relevant legal provisions, and the consideration of mitigating factors, such as the appellant’s long incarceration and good conduct. The legal interpretation focused on the individual culpability of the appellant for murder, while the application to the facts involved a detailed assessment of the eyewitness accounts, recovery of the weapon, and medical evidence. The court also emphasized the importance of proportionality in sentencing, considering the possibility of the appellant’s reformation.

The implications for future cases are that the courts will need to carefully assess the evidence for individual culpability in cases involving multiple accused persons and common intention. The decision also reinforces the principle that minor discrepancies in evidence should not invalidate a case if the core of the prosecution’s case is consistent. Additionally, the court has reiterated the power of appellate courts to modify sentences, considering factors such as the period of incarceration and the possibility of reformation.

The court did not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles. However, it reinforced the importance of the principle of proportionality in sentencing and the need to consider both aggravating and mitigating factors. The court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that justice is served while also recognizing the potential for reformation in offenders.

Key Takeaways

• A conviction under Section 302 IPC can be upheld even if co-accused are acquitted, provided there is sufficient evidence against the individual accused.
• Inconsistencies in evidence related to common intention (Section 34 IPC) can lead to the acquittal of an accused under that section.
• Appellate courts have the power to modify sentences, considering factors such as the period of incarceration, conduct in jail, and the possibility of reformation.
• Minor discrepancies in evidence should not invalidate a case if the core of the prosecution’s case is consistent.

The judgment underscores the importance of individual accountability in criminal law and the need for a balanced approach in sentencing, considering both the gravity of the offense and the possibility of reformation.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellant shall pay the fine amount imposed by the Sessions Court, if not paid already, and shall be set at liberty if not required in any other case. The bail bond executed by the appellant was discharged.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, can be sustained even if the co-accused are acquitted, provided there is sufficient evidence to prove the individual act of murder. This case also clarifies that the conviction under Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, requires clear evidence of common intention, and inconsistencies in such evidence can lead to the acquittal of the accused under that section. The Supreme Court also reiterated its power to modify sentences based on mitigating factors, such as the period of incarceration and the possibility of reformation, which is a reiteration of the settled law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, but setting aside the conviction under Section 34. The sentence was modified to the period already undergone, considering the appellant’s long incarceration and the possibility of reformation. The judgment emphasizes the importance of individual accountability in criminal law and the need for a balanced approach in sentencing.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Murder
  • Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Arms Act, 1959
  • Section 25, Arms Act, 1959
  • Section 27, Arms Act, 1959
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Arms Act, 1959
  • Section 25, Arms Act, 1959
  • Section 27, Arms Act, 1959

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in the Sandeep vs. State of Uttarakhand case?

A: The main issue was whether the conviction of an accused for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 34, can be sustained when the co-accused have been acquitted and the evidence of common intention is contradictory.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide regarding the conviction?

A: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC for murder but set aside the conviction under Section 34 IPC, which pertains to common intention.

Q: Why was the conviction under Section 34 IPC set aside?

A: The conviction under Section 34 IPC was set aside because the evidence of common intention was contradictory, and the co-accused were acquitted.

Q: What was the sentence imposed on the appellant?

A: The Supreme Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant, considering his long incarceration and the possibility of reformation.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?

A: The key takeaways are that individual culpability is essential in criminal law, minor discrepancies in evidence do not invalidate a case if the core is consistent, and appellate courts have the power to modify sentences based on mitigating factors.

Q: What does this case mean for future cases?

A: This case highlights the need for courts to carefully assess the evidence for individual culpability in cases involving multiple accused persons and common intention. It also reinforces the power of appellate courts to modify sentences based on the specific facts of each case.