SANDEEP versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2024] 10 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 14-10-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 10 S.C.R. 769 : 2024 INSC 771
Sandeep 
v. 
State of Uttarakhand
(Criminal Appeal No. 2224 of 2014)
14 October 2024
[Pankaj Mithal and R. Mahadevan,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The Sessions Court found the appellant guilty of the offence 
u/s.302 r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment for life. The judgment of conviction and 
sentence passed by the Sessions Court was also affirmed by 
the High Court.
Headnotes†
Penal Code,1860 – s.302 r/w. s.34 – Arms Act, 1959 – s.25/27 – 
Prosecution case that four persons including appellant shot 
victim-deceased dead, when he was sitting in his courtyard – 
Trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s.302 
r/w. s.34 IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo 
rigorous imprisonment for life – Appellant was acquitted for 
the offence u/ss.25/27 of the Arms Act – Trial Court acquitted 
the other two co-accused and file of one the accused was sent 
to Juvenile Court – Aggrieved, the appellant herein filed an 
appeal against his conviction before the High Court, which 
was dismissed – Correctness:
Held: Upon scrutiny of the depositions of the material witnesses 
as well as the exhibits produced by the prosecution, predominantly, 
it is evident that on 30.10.1997 at 9.45 p.m., the deceased died 
due to the injuries sustained by firing of bullet – P.W.1 and P.W.2 
clearly demonstrated in their deposition that the accused were 
having weapons and on exhortation by other accused, the appellant 
shot the deceased – The source of light in the scene of crime 
was explained by P.W.2 in his evidence – The evidence of P.W.3 
proved that the material objects were recovered from the scene of 
crime – The fact that there was a torch and a lantern is recorded in 
Exts.A2 and A11 – The statement of P.W.1 and P.W.2 corroborates 
with the materials recovered from the scene of occurrence – It is 
* Author
770
[2024] 10 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
clearly stated by P.W.4 in his evidence that a country made pistol 
12 bore and one empty cartridge were recovered on identification 
by the appellant – It is to be seen that even in the FIR, it was 
mentioned that the deceased victim was shot – There is no delay 
in lodging the complaint, registering the FIR and filing the charge 
sheet – In the instant case, the charge of murder framed against 
the appellant stood proved – It is proved beyond doubt that the 
victim died due to gunshot – The presence of the other accused 
with the alleged weapons was not proved and the victim was not 
inflicted with any other form of injury – Therefore, the benefit of 
doubt granted to the other accused, who were acquitted, cannot 
be extended to the appellant – Accordingly, the conviction under 
section 302 IPC is confirmed – However, since the appellant 
remains the sole accused, there could be no charge u/s.34 
IPC against him – Therefore, conviction of appellant u/s.34 IPC 
unsustainable. [Paras 14, 16, 17]
Sentence/Sentencing – Appellant convicted u/s.302 r/w. s.34 
of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 
life – Sentence modified to the period already undergone:
Held: The facts and circumstances clearly disclose that due to 
sudden provocation, for not giving jaggery, the accused came 
to the house of the deceased and on exhortation by other 
accused, the appellant shot the deceased and that, there was 
no premeditation in the commission of crime – The appellant 
has undergone the sentence for a period of 13 years 6 months 
and 20 days without remission and the total sentence of 17 
years 1 month and 9 days and that, he has good conduct during 
this period; and thus, it is evident that the appellant served 
incarceration for more than 14 years and that, he had no bad 
antecedent except this – On a perusal of the records also shows 
that the appellant belonged to poor economic background and 
had been taking care of his entire family; and that there exists 
a possibility of reformation – Pertinently, it is to be noted that 
the object of punishment is not only to deter the accused from 
committing any further crime, but also to reform and retribute; 
and the extent of reformation can be derived only by the conduct 
of the accused exhibited during his days of retribution – Taking 
note of the aggravating and mitigating factors, the sentence of 
imprisonment for life awarded by the Sessions Court as affirmed 
by the High Court, is modified to the period already undergone 
by the appella

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.