The Supreme Court of India partially allowed the appeal by Appellant, modifying his life sentence to the period already served, citing his good conduct and potential for reformation. The Court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC but set aside the conviction under Section 34 IPC, due to insufficient evidence of common intention with the other accused.

1. Background and Conviction (Paras 1-2):

• The appellant, Sandeep, was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC for the murder of Abdul Hameed in 1997 and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court. His appeal to the High Court was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence.

2. Prosecution's Case (Paras 3-5):

• The prosecution alleged that Sandeep and others confronted Abdul Hameed, shooting him over a dispute related to jaggery. Evidence included eyewitness testimony and the recovery of a country-made pistol.

3. Evidence Presented (Paras 6-9):

• Key witnesses (PW1 and PW2) corroborated the presence of Sandeep and his role in the shooting. Medical and forensic evidence confirmed the cause of death due to firearm injuries. However, discrepancies in witness statements and missing evidence raised questions.

4. Defense's Arguments (Paras 10-10.3):

• The defense highlighted contradictions, such as the absence of specific roles assigned to the accused in the FIR and the non-examination of crucial witnesses (e.g., the deceased’s wife). It was argued that the inconsistencies undermined the prosecution's case.

5. Prosecution's Counterarguments (Paras 11-11.2):

• The state argued that despite minor contradictions, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was consistent and sufficient to convict Sandeep. The non-examination of certain witnesses was deemed non-fatal to the prosecution’s case.

6. Supreme Court's Assessment (Paras 12-18):

• The Court reviewed the Sessions Court and High Court findings, agreeing with the conviction under Section 302 IPC but rejecting the charge under Section 34 IPC. It found that there was no sufficient evidence of common intention among the accused to sustain the charge under Section 34.

7. Sentence Modification and Mitigating Factors (Paras 19-21):

• The Court noted Sandeep’s good conduct during 17 years of incarceration, his socio-economic background, and the absence of prior criminal history. Citing legal precedents, the Court modified his sentence to time already served, emphasizing the principles of proportionality, reformation, and justice.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Section 302 IPC: Murder.
• Section 34 IPC: Common intention.
• Section 25/27 of the Arms Act: Possession and use of a firearm (Sandeep was acquitted of this charge due to lack of proper sanction from the District Magistrate).

Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court established that while the evidence was sufficient to convict Sandeep for murder under Section 302 IPC, it was inadequate to prove common intention under Section 34 IPC. Furthermore, the Court balanced justice with mercy by considering Sandeep's conduct, socio-economic circumstances, and the possibility of rehabilitation.

Subject:

Criminal Law, IPC, Evidence Law

• Murder Conviction
• Section 302 IPC
• Acquittal under Section 34 IPC
• Sentence Modification
• Arms Act