A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The case examines the conviction of the appellant, Sandeep, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, for the murder of Abdul Hameed. The crime was allegedly triggered by a minor provocation involving jaggery. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, upheld by both the Sessions Court and the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court modified the sentence to the period already served, considering mitigating factors such as provocation, lack of premeditation, good conduct, and the appellant’s socio-economic background. This case highlights the balance between justice, deterrence, and reformation in sentencing.

Keywords: Section 302 IPC, Conviction, Murder, Provocation, Sentencing Reform, Life Imprisonment, Mitigating Factors.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
Sandeep v. State of Uttarakhand

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 2224 of 2014

iii) Judgment Date:
14 October 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice R. Mahadevan

vi) Author:
Justice R. Mahadevan

vii) Citation:
[2024] 10 S.C.R. 769, 2024 INSC 771

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 302, Section 34
• Arms Act, 1959: Section 25, Section 27

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None

x) Case is Related to:
Criminal Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal arises from a conviction in a case of murder committed in 1997. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The High Court upheld the conviction. The appellant sought relief in the Supreme Court, which delved into the evidence, inconsistencies, and mitigating factors to decide on the appropriate punishment. The judgment reflects the evolving approach toward sentencing that factors in rehabilitation and proportionality.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

On 30 October 1997, Abdul Hameed, the deceased, was sitting in his courtyard with his wife. Four accused, including the appellant, approached and demanded jaggery (gur). On his refusal, they allegedly shot him. Witnesses claimed the appellant fired the fatal shot after being instigated by the other accused. The FIR was lodged promptly, and physical evidence like a country-made pistol and cartridge was recovered on the appellant’s identification.

During the trial, two co-accused were acquitted for lack of evidence, while the appellant alone was convicted. The High Court upheld this conviction, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was sustainable in light of the appellant being the sole convicted accused.
2. Whether the evidence presented sufficiently proved the appellant’s involvement.
3. Whether the mitigating circumstances justified modifying the life imprisonment sentence.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

• Role Ambiguity: The FIR did not specify the role of each accused. Witnesses later attributed the firing to the appellant without consistency.
• Inconsistent Evidence: Witnesses claimed to have seen the crime but bore no bloodstains despite carrying the deceased. Contradictions on the light source at the scene undermined their credibility.
• Non-Examination of Key Witnesses: The wife of the deceased, present during the incident, was not examined, weakening the prosecution’s case.
• Lack of Premeditation: The incident stemmed from sudden provocation, and no premeditation was established.
• Leniency in Sentencing: The appellant’s socio-economic hardships, good conduct during incarceration, and reformation potential warranted a reduced sentence.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

• Strong Evidence: Eyewitnesses confirmed that the appellant fired the fatal shot. The recovery of the weapon and cartridge corroborated their testimonies.
• Proven Guilt: Forensic evidence established that the death resulted from gunshot injuries inflicted by the appellant.
• Section 34 IPC Applicability: Although the appellant was the sole convicted individual, the group’s common intention justified invoking Section 34 IPC.
• Justice Served: The lower courts correctly assessed evidence and imposed appropriate punishment.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

• The conviction under Section 302 IPC was upheld based on evidence showing that the appellant fired the fatal shot.
• The invocation of Section 34 IPC was deemed unsustainable since the appellant was the sole convicted individual, and no conclusive evidence of group intention was found.

b. Obiter Dicta:

• Sentencing should balance retribution with reformation. The appellant’s conduct in prison and socio-economic background justified modifying the sentence.

c. Guidelines:
The Court laid down sentencing considerations, including:

• Mitigating factors like age, provocation, and socio-economic status.
• Reformative potential based on prison conduct.
• Proportionality between crime and punishment.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The case demonstrates the judicial emphasis on proportionality and the reformative purpose of punishment. By reducing the sentence to the time served, the Court recognized the appellant’s potential for reintegration into society. This judgment contributes to the jurisprudence on sentencing, particularly in cases involving mitigating circumstances.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

1. Shiva Kumar @ Shivamurthy v. State of Karnataka [2023] 4 SCR 669
2. C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu [2010] 10 SCR 262
3. Union of India v. V. Sriharan [2015] 14 SCR 613
4. Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka [2008] 11 SCR 93
5. Navas @ Mulanavas v. State of Kerala [2024] 3 SCR 913

b. Important Statutes Referred:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 302, Section 34
2. Arms Act, 1959: Section 25, Section 27