Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, R. Mahadevan, JJ.
Sandeep – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2224 of 2014
Decided On : 14-10-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 r/w Section 34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1) read with Section 3(5)] – Murder – Common intention – Life sentence – Minor deficiencies / inconsistencies / contradictions in evidence let in by prosecution cannot be considered as remissness in investigation enabling appellant’s acquittal, particularly, when appellant was present with a gun in scene of occurrence – Acquittal of appellant under Section 25/27 of Arms Act was on a technical ground – It is proved beyond doubt that victim died due to gunshot – Presence of other accused with alleged weapons was not proved and victim was not inflicted with any other form of injury – Benefit of doubt granted to other accused, who were acquitted, cannot be extended to appellant – Conviction under Section 302 IPC confirmed – Insofar as conviction under Section 34 IPC, there is contradiction in evidence of Investigating Officer and other witnesses on instigation – For a person to be convicted under Section 34, there must be involvement of two or more persons with common intention to commit crime – Mere presence of accused at scene of occurrence is not sufficient – After acquittal of other accused appellant remains sole accused and there could be no charge under Section 34 against him – Conviction of appellant under Section 34 IPC by Sessions Court as confirmed by High Court is unsustainable – Appellant acquitted of charge under Section 34 IPC – Appellant had no bad antecedent and there exists possibility of reformation – Sentence modified to period already undergone by appellant. (Paras 15, 16, 17, 18, 19.2 and 20)
Facts of the case:
Sessions Court found appellant guilty of offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, while acquitting other two co-accused. Sessions Court acquitted appellant of the offence under Section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Criminal Appeal ended in dismissal by impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2011 passed by High Court.
Findings of Court:
Appellant shall pay fine amount imposed by Sessions Court, if not paid already. He shall be set at liberty if not required in any other case. Bail bond executed by appellant stands discharged.
Result : Criminal Appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
R.MAHADEVAN, J.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital1[hereinafter shortly referred to as “the High Court”], in Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2006, Sandeep v. State of Uttarakhand, whereby, the High Court dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgment and order dated 16.05.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / First Fast Track Court, Roorkee, District Haridwar3[hereinafter shortly referred to as “the Sessions Court”] in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 1998, State v. Veer Singh and two others.
2. The appellant Sandeep along with two others viz., Veer Singh and Dharamveer, was tried for having caused the murder of one Abdul Hameed on 30.10.1997 at 9.45 p.m., and thereby committed the offence under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “the IPC”) and section 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short, “the Arms Act”). The Sessions Court, in the aforesaid Sessions Trial No.208 of 1998, found the appellant guilty of the offence under section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months, while acquitting the other two co-accused. The Sessions Court in the connected Sessions Trial No.209 of 1998, State v. Sandeep, acquitted the appellant of the offence under section 25/27 of the Arms Act. Feeling aggrieved and being dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Trial No.208 of 1998, the appellant went on Criminal Appeal No.65 of 2006, which ended in dismissal by the impugned judgment and order dated 16.12.2011 passed by the High Court.
3. Shorn off unnecessary details, the case of the prosecution is that on 31.10.1997, one Kale Hasan (P.W.1 / complainant) S/o Abdul Hameed, resident of village Dosni, lodged a written report (Ext.A-1) to Police Station Laksar, District Haridwar, alleging that on the midnight of 30.10.1997, while his father Abdul Hameed (deceased) and his mother Mangti were sitting in their courtyard and were talking to each other, at about 09:45 p.m., four persons viz., Veer Singh S/o Jaswant Singh, Mintu S/o Molhar, Dharamveer S/o.Brhampal and Sandeep (appellant herein), all residents of Dosni village, came there and told to his father that they would teach him a lesson for refusing to give them jaggery (GUR) and shot at his father. On hearing the sound of the gun-shot, the complainant, along with Gufran Ali (P.W.2) and Naseem, reached the courtyard and saw that all the four accused persons, after shooting, were fleeing away from the scene of crime. Thereafter, the injured Abdul Hammed was taken to the Government Hospital, Laksar for treatment, where the doctor declared him dead.
4. On the basis of the written report, Chik report (Ext.A-13) was prepared and a case in Laskar Police Station Crime No.185 of 1997 was registered against all the four accused for the offence under section 302 IPC. The Sub Inspector of Police Satish Verma, during the course of investigation, inspected the scene of crime and prepared inquest report (Ext.A4) on the body of the deceased and site plan (Ext.A9). On 31.10.1997, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses; recovered one country-made pistol 12 bore and one empty cartridge concealed in the field of Dharmdas under a transformer, on pointing out by the appellant; and prepared recovery memo (Ext.A3) and plan for the place of recovery (Ext.A10). That apart, the Investigating Officer collected bloodstained soil and plain soil (Ext.A5) and took possession of the articles viz., a torch with three batteries (Ext.A2), a bloodstain cot (Ext.A6), a quilt-cover, a cotton blanket and a quilt (Ext.A7) and a lantern (Ext.A11). Thereafter, the body of the deceased Abdul Hameed along with inquest report (Ext.A4) was sent for post-mortem. Dr.R.K.Verma, Physician (P.W.7)
Common intention – For a person to be convicted under Section 34 of IPC, there must be involvement of two or more persons with common intention to commit crime – Mere presence of accused at scene of ....
Point of Law; It is well settled by plethora of judicial pronouncements by this Court that suspicion, however strong cannot take the place of proof. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless prove....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, the assessment of witness credibility, and the significance of consistent an....
(1) Recovery of weapon used in commission of offence is not a sine qua non to convict accused – If there is direct evidence in form of eye witness, even in absence of recovery of weapon, accused can ....
When evidence of eye-witnesses are not trust worthy to believe, then motive place an important role to prove guilt of accused.
Point of Law : Conviction on the basis of statements of two police officials alone is not sustainable.
The distinction between intention and motive is crucial in determining the nature of the offence, and the duty to separate evidence for each accused is essential in criminal cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
