Supreme Court Reduces Life Sentence to 10 Years in Dacoity-Murder Case: Shajahan vs. State (2018) INSC 123

Date of the Judgment: February 16, 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 123
Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J., R. Banumathi, J.

Can a sentence of life imprisonment for dacoity with murder be reduced based on the facts and circumstances of the case? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, modifying the sentence of three appellants from life imprisonment to ten years. The case involved a robbery at a pawn shop where one of the employees was murdered. The court considered the lapse of time since the incident and the specific roles of the accused in the crime while reducing the sentence. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice R. Banumathi, with Justice Banumathi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On the intervening night of November 13 and 14, 2002, at approximately 1:30 AM, five individuals, including the appellants Basheer (A1), Shajahan (A2), and Babu @ Nawab Sahib (A4), along with Raja Mohammad (A3) and Balu @ Balasubramanian (A5), allegedly conspired to rob a pawn shop owned by PW-1 Muthaiyah. During the robbery, Shajahan (A2) allegedly held the legs of Muthukrishnan, an employee sleeping inside the shop, while Babu @ Nawab Sahib (A4) sat on his chest, constricted his neck, and strangled him with a jute rope, resulting in his death. The group then stole approximately 4.788 kg of gold and 5.595 kg of silver, worth around Rs. 12,00,000.

The next morning, on November 13, 2002, around 5:30 AM, PW-4 Chellam, a sweeper at the pawn shop, informed PW-1 that Muthukrishnan was found dead. PW-1 then filed a complaint at the Mandharakuppam Police Station, leading to the registration of a case under Sections 457, 380, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). PW-37, the Station House Officer (SHO), took over the investigation.

On February 6, 2003, at around 11:00 PM, Raja Mohammad (A3) was apprehended near the Panrutti bus stand. His confession statement, recorded in the presence of PW-15 Vasan, led to the recovery of Rs. 46,000. Further investigation based on Raja Mohammad’s confession led to the recovery of various stolen jewelry items from different locations.

Babu @ Nawab Sahib (A4) was arrested in Alichakudi village based on Raja Mohammad’s identification. His confession resulted in the recovery of seventeen items of jewelry from his mother’s sister’s house. Further investigation led to the recovery of more jewelry items from Mumbai, including from his uncle’s house and Panchaseel Jewellery.

On February 6, 2003, at approximately 1:30 AM, Basheer (A1) and Shajahan (A2) were intercepted by the police while riding a TVS-50 motorcycle. They attempted to flee, but were apprehended. Their confession statements led to the recovery of jewelry from the motorcycle’s petrol tank cover. Finally, on February 8, 2003, at around 4:00 AM, Balu @ Balasubramanian (A5) was arrested based on information from informants. His confession led to the recovery of gold jewelry from a shop in Chidambaram and his house.

Following the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused under Sections 457, 395, 396, and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial court convicted all five accused under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 of the IPC, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The trial court did not find it necessary to convict the accused under Section 302 of the IPC, given their conviction under Section 396 of the IPC.

Shajahan and Raja Mohammad appealed their convictions to the High Court, which were subsequently dismissed. The State also filed an appeal seeking an enhancement of the sentence under Section 396 of the IPC. The High Court allowed the State’s appeal and enhanced the sentence from ten years to life imprisonment. The High Court did not address the issue of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around Sections 396 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states, “If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section deals with the punishment for dacoity with murder.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” This section deals with the punishment for murder.

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 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.” This section deals with the principle of common intention.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were based on the evidence and the applicability of Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The arguments can be summarized as follows:

• Arguments on behalf of the Appellants:
  • The appellants argued that the High Court erred in enhancing the sentence to life imprisonment.
  • They contended that the trial court’s decision to sentence them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment was appropriate considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the lapse of time since the incident.
  • They emphasized that the accused were not armed during the commission of the dacoity.
• Arguments on behalf of the State:
  • The State argued that the commission of murder during dacoity is a serious offense and should be viewed with utmost seriousness.
  • They relied on the judgment in Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771, to assert that murder committed during dacoity warrants a severe punishment.
  • The State supported the High Court’s decision to enhance the sentence to life imprisonment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence of imprisonment from ten years to life imprisonment for the conviction under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the Supreme Court:

The following legal provisions were considered by the Supreme Court:

• Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for dacoity with murder.
• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the principle of common intention.

Judgment

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771: The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offense as highlighted in this case, but distinguished the facts of the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision to modify the sentence was influenced by several factors. The court emphasized that while dacoity with murder is a grave offense, the specific circumstances of each case must be considered. The court took into account the long lapse of time since the incident, the fact that the accused were not armed, and the specific roles of the accused in the crime. The court also noted that Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides for a range of punishments, including imprisonment for a term that may extend to ten years, allowing for judicial discretion in sentencing.

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The court considered the argument that the commission of murder during dacoity warrants a severe punishment as laid down in Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771. However, it distinguished the facts of the present case, noting that the accused were not armed and that there had been a significant lapse of time since the incident. The court emphasized the discretion available under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to impose a sentence lesser than life imprisonment.

The Supreme Court stated, “Though the offence under Section 396 IPC is to be viewed with seriousness, for the conviction under Section 396 IPC, larger discretion is vested with the court insofar as there is possibility of imposing a penalty lesser than death or imprisonment for life for the conviction under Section 396 IPC.”

The Supreme Court further noted, “Considering the long lapse of time and the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment for life is modified as ten years as directed by the trial court.”

The court also observed, “In the course of commission of dacoity, if a dacoit commits murder, all his companions who are conjointly committing dacoity, are liable to be convicted under Section 396 IPC, although they may have no participation in the murder beyond the fact of participation in the dacoity.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has clarified that while dacoity with murder is a serious offense, the specific circumstances of each case must be considered when imposing a sentence under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The court has emphasized that Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) allows for judicial discretion in sentencing, and a sentence lesser than life imprisonment may be appropriate in certain cases.
• The lapse of time since the incident and the fact that the accused were not armed are relevant factors that can be considered when determining the appropriate sentence.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants-Basheer, Shajahan, and Babu @ Nawab Sahib be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, as they had been in custody for more than ten years.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while dacoity with murder is a serious offense, the court has discretion under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to impose a sentence lesser than life imprisonment, considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case. This judgment reinforces the principle that sentencing should be individualized and take into account factors such as the lapse of time since the incident, whether the accused were armed, and the specific roles of the accused in the crime. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In the case of Shajahan vs. State (2018) INSC 123, the Supreme Court of India partly allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court’s decision to enhance the sentence of imprisonment from ten years to life imprisonment for the conviction under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to ten years of imprisonment, considering the long lapse of time since the incident, the fact that the accused were not armed, and the specific circumstances of the case. This judgment highlights the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the need to consider the specific facts of each case when imposing punishment for dacoity with murder.