Supreme Court Reduces Sentence in Dacoity-Murder Case: Shajahan vs. State (2018)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence of imprisonment for dacoity with murder from ten years to life imprisonment.

CASE TYPE: Criminal Law

Case Name: Shajahan vs. State Rep. by Inspector of Police

Judgment Date: 16 February 2018

Date of the Judgment: 16 February 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Ranjan Gogoi, J. and R. Banumathi, J.

Can a High Court enhance a sentence for dacoity with murder, especially when the trial court had already imposed a sentence of ten years? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, examining the circumstances under which an enhanced sentence is appropriate. This case revolves around a robbery that resulted in the death of a person, and whether the accused should face life imprisonment or a lesser sentence. The bench comprised of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, with the judgment authored by Justice R. Banumathi.

Case Background

On the night of November 13/14, 2002, at approximately 1:30 AM, Basheer (A1), Shajahan (A2), and Babu @ Nawab Sahib (A4), along with Raja Mohammad (A3) and Balu @ Balasubramanian (A5), allegedly committed a robbery at a pawn shop owned by PW-1 Muthaiyah. During the robbery, Muthukrishnan, who was sleeping inside the shop, was allegedly strangled to death. Shajahan (A2) is said to have held the legs of the deceased, while Babu @ Nawab Sahib (A4) sat on his chest, constricting his neck with a jute rope. The robbers 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, at about 5:30 AM, PW-4 Chellam, a sweeper at the pawn shop, found Muthukrishnan dead and informed PW-1. PW-1 then lodged 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, took over the investigation.

On February 6, 2003, Raja Mohammad (A3) was arrested near the Panrutti bus stand. His confession led to the recovery of Rs. 46,000 and various items of jewelry from different locations. Subsequently, Babu @ Nawab Sahib (A4) was arrested in Alichakudi village based on Raja Mohammad’s identification. His confession led to further recovery of jewelry from his relative’s house and a jewelry shop in Mumbai.

Later on February 6, 2003, at about 1:30 AM, Basheer (A1) and Shajahan (A2) were apprehended while riding a TVS-50 motorcycle. Their confession led to the recovery of jewelry hidden on the motorcycle. Balu @ Balasubramanian (A5) was arrested on February 8, 2003, based on information from informants, and his confession led to the recovery of more gold jewelry.

After the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the accused under Sections 457, 395, 396, and 302 read with 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, and sentenced them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The trial court did not consider 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 conviction to the High Court, which dismissed their appeals. The State also filed an appeal, seeking enhancement of the sentence under Section 396 of the IPC. The High Court allowed the State’s appeal, enhancing the sentence from ten years to life imprisonment, without addressing the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with dacoity with murder. Section 396 of the 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.”

The case also refers to Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Arguments

The arguments presented in the judgment are as follows:

• The prosecution argued that the High Court was correct in enhancing the sentence to life imprisonment, given the seriousness of the crime, where a murder was committed during a dacoity. They relied on the fact that the accused were involved in a grave offense.

• The appellants, on the other hand, contended that the trial court’s sentence of ten years was sufficient, considering the circumstances of the case and the fact that the accused were not armed. They argued that the High Court should not have enhanced the sentence.

The High Court relied upon the judgment in Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771, to emphasize the seriousness of murder during dacoity.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• 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 Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771 – Supreme Court of India. This case was relied upon by the High Court to emphasize the seriousness of murder during dacoity.

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Dacoity with murder.
• Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.

Judgment

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court’s decision.

The Supreme Court’s view on the authorities:

• Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771*: The Supreme Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offense but distinguished the facts of the present case, noting that the accused were not armed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by several factors. The Court emphasized the long lapse of time since the occurrence in 2002 and the fact that the accused were not armed during the dacoity. While acknowledging the seriousness of the offense under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Court noted that there is discretion to impose a sentence lesser than life imprisonment. The Court was also mindful of the fact that the trial court had already imposed a sentence of ten years. The Court’s decision reflects a balanced approach, considering both the gravity of the crime and the specific circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning included:

• The Court recognized that Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) allows for a sentence of death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years.
• The Court noted that while the offense is serious, the High Court should not have enhanced the sentence, especially considering the trial court’s decision and the specific facts of the case.
• The Court emphasized the long lapse of time and the fact that the accused were not armed.
• The Court modified the sentence to ten years of imprisonment, as directed by the trial court.

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.”
• “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.”
• “While maintaining the conviction under Section 396 IPC, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants-Basheer, Shajahan and Babu @ Nawab Sahib is modified as ten years of imprisonment and the appeals are partly allowed.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court has clarified that while dacoity with murder is a serious offense, courts have discretion to impose a sentence lesser than life imprisonment under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
• The specific facts and circumstances of the case, such as whether the accused were armed and the lapse of time since the incident, are important factors to consider while determining the sentence.
• The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of a balanced approach in sentencing, considering both the gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that since the appellants were in custody for more than ten years, they were to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while dacoity with murder is a serious offense, courts have the discretion to impose a sentence lesser than life imprisonment under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), especially when considering the specific facts and circumstances of the case, such as whether the accused were armed and the lapse of time since the incident. This case does not change any previous position of law but clarifies the application of sentencing in dacoity with murder cases.

Conclusion

In the case of Shajahan vs. State, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, modifying the High Court’s decision to enhance the sentence to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court reduced the sentence to ten years of imprisonment, as directed by the trial court, considering the long lapse of time and the fact that the accused were not armed. This judgment clarifies the discretionary power of courts in sentencing under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and emphasizes the importance of considering individual circumstances in such cases.